.png){kind=logo}
January 2, 2012 at 11:18 pm 
Jen Let’s break this one down sequentially:
1. Penn Jilette tweets a link to a “really wonderful” article his friend Mallorie wrote about her experience in the skeptic community.
2. I click said link.
3. I nearly vomit while eating my dinner because the article can be summarized as “I’m a woman who doesn’t feel uncomfortable in the skeptic community, therefore all those other women who complain are humorless, overemotional, and anti-sex. Don’t listen to them, listen to me because I’m part of the boy’s club!”
4. I get in a twitter fight with Penn Jilette and he actually responds, insisting that she’s “just right.” Yes, I know, my life is weird. He is totally bewildered by all the people trying to explain what’s wrong with her article.
Penn Jilette is a major celebrity in the skeptical movement and has traditionally played a major part in The Amazing Meeting, including throwing his Bacon and Donut party to raise money for the JREF. I know he cares about it, so I want him to understand why this article is so terribly, terribly wrong. Let’s break it down:
For as long as I can remember I have been welcomed in to communities which were generally considered ”sausage fests”. If not for the constant noting of this fact I would have never noticed. You guys were always just my friends.
As I’ve gotten older these subcultures have become more vocal about wanting to include more women, the discussion has become “how can we make the community more welcoming to women”.
As a woman who has been here all along this is distressing to me, I love you guys for who you are, from my table-top strategy gaming group though my political debate forum right in to the skeptical community. You have never been anything but awesome and welcoming. Who made you think you weren’t?
The women who are seen as nothing more than sex objects and whose views and opinions are ignored or dismissed. The women who give talks and receive compliments about their appearance before the content of their presentation. The women who are sexually harassed by big names in the movement and are too afraid to speak up lest her social life or career is ruined. The women who make it clear that sexual advances are personally unwelcome, yet have their boundaries disregarded. The women who blog that are silenced by gendered insults and threatened with sexual violence, rape, and death threats.
The outspoken women who aren’t as lucky to have had awesome, comfortable experiences like you.
I am here, in my various communities because I like you guys, and I like the basis of the movement. The idea that you have to set time aside to cater to me, because my vagina imbibes me with some special needs is becoming increasingly insulting. These communities are about our minds, not our genitals and as far as I can tell my mind is just like yours.
Here’s the first straw man. No one is asking for communities to cater to our special needs, because being treated as equal is not a special need. We’re asking for exactly what you claim to want: recognition that these communities are about our minds, not our genitalia.
More recently I have noticed a trend among men in my communities, you seem to have been told that you’re awful and need to change. Again, apparently because your genitals imbibe you with an inescapable assholism. Please never believe this lie. With all my heart I beg you to not make monsters of your gender. I like your jokes. I like your humor. I like the casualness and ease that no gender distinction has allowed us all over the years. You have never hurt or insulted me, you have brought me years of joy, wonderful debate, and stimulating conversation. By forgetting to see me as a woman, you have treated me as an equal, as a comrade, as a friend.
Again, straw man. No one is saying all men are evil misogynistic assholes, and that this is a trait somehow biologically predetermined by the presence of a penis. Were saying that the select men who are treating women poorly need to cut it out and treat us like human beings.
If your jokes or teasing manner offend some people, so the fuck what? Someone will always be offended by jokes, never let them make you believe that you are guilty of something worse simply because of your gender. If you want to make boob jokes thats fine by me, you have after all been making dick jokes since you were old enough to make jokes. Plus they are funny as hell. If you want to go free and uncensored among a group of like minded people, if you want to try to acquire sex from a like minded person, awesome, do it, sex and friendship are amazing. You are not a monster for wanting these things. You are not a monster for attempting to acquire them.
Third straw man. This has nothing to with dirty jokes or flirting. Scroll back up to that paragraph I wrote about the kind of women who are asking for change. That’s what we’re upset about. Not crass jokes. I am the skeptical movement’s fucking patron saint of boob jokes. Don’t tell me that’s what I’m complaining about.
I type this with all of the warmth and sorrow of someone entangled in the most beautiful of bromances. I love you guys. And I’d like to slap the silly assholes who have given you the idea that you have mistreated me.
With all of my heart I beg you: Do not change. Do not change for me, do not change for someone else. You’re wonderful, just the way you are. If the day comes when you censor your language around me, when dick/fart/vagina jokes are not allowed because of my delicate gender, my heart will break as I wave goodbye in a search for a more open, natural, candid community that does not insist on seeing me first for my gender. And if you want to tease me because I am shedding a little girlish tear though an odd smile as I type this, thats ok too. But don’t ever stop being you.
Yeah, just do whatever you want! Who the fuck cares if you’re hurting people. If you’re racist, great. Homophobic, splendid. Sexist, woohoo! Because you should never change your behavior to try to be a better human being.
I did not enter this relationship with the intention of changing you all. I am enough of a grownup to know that is a terrible idea. I entered because I love science, truth, questioning, and curiosity. I love candor, and occasionally rough humor, I love the ingroup demeanor we have with each other. And I have stayed because you never insisted on seeing me as a girl.
And there’s the first part of a declaration of being part of the boy’s club. “Thanks for not seeing me as an icky girl.”
I came because I love what we are about, and I love you guys too. Don’t ever adulterate yourselves in an attempt to try to lure more vagina possessing patrons. I can think of nothing more tragic and disingenuous.
Keep joking with me, keeping being open and awesome and curious and funny, keep trying to fuck me, because I cant think of any reason why I would rather fuck someone else, we are after all human. I assure you I’ll return the favor.
And there’s part two: “Keep trying to fuck me.” That statement effectively communicates “I put out, unlike those sexless naggers, so you should keep me around.” It’s a straw man in itself, since no one is telling men to stop flirting or trying to get laid. We’re asking that you respect the boundaries that we clearly state, understand when no means no, and time your advances for appropriate social situations. Flirt with us in the pub night following the group discussion, not while we’re organizing a campaign to fight the anti-vax movement.
And I’m not sure how this logically flows with her insistence that guys don’t see her gender or treat her differently. Unless the whole skeptical community that she’s addressing is bisexual, and she’s the only one in on that secret.
In conclusion: Don’t ever let someone make you feel bad for being you, for being male, for being funny, don’t ever believe the lie that us delicate girls cant take being hit on, cant keep up with the filthy jokes, cant argue you blue in the face, and need special treatment. I love you guys. Don’t change.
Don’t ever believe the lie that those topics are what skeptical women have been shouting about for the last couple of years.
I’m glad there’s a woman out there who has had nothing but lovely experiences in the skeptical movement. I hope the number of women who feel that way grows and grows. But I hope none of them totally disregard the experiences of other women like Mallorie has. It’s salt in our wounds that Penn felt the need to promote this. Has someone so involved in the skeptical movement really not been listening to what we’ve been saying?
Posted in
I like Penn a lot, but there is one cognitive error he’s badly prone to, and that is selection bias. When he wants to believe something, he will hunt until he finds some anecdotal support and is quite capable of ignoring mountains of evidence against his chosen position. He doesn’t want to believe this problem exists, plainly.
Yeah, I have a feeling he doesn’t consider the fact that there are women who are just fine sitting at the back of the haradi bus is a very convincing argument against religious discrimination. But this is just different because ‘she’s right’.
And she’s right because she agrees with Jillette (who, I should take this opportunity to come clean, has always struck me as an asshole).
He just oozes unexamined privilege (hence his Libertarian outlook), which is what you’re picking up on. I still recommend Bullshit! overall (I just got God, No! as a Solstice present, which I haven’t read yet), but be wary of disingenuous or even unintentionally-biased framing when looking at any of his projects.
Yes.
I don’t think I’ll be watching any more episodes of Bullshit though. The conceit of Teller not talking and Penn’s unexamined arrogance is more than I can stand (I gave up after their episode that ridiculed people they intentionally misled for being misled with that whole dihydrogen monoxide nonsense). There are plenty of other ways to get good information about the world.
Also, PJ’s adherence to libertarionism and support of Ron Paul just proves that he’s an ideologue, not a skeptic.
Speaking of disingenuous, unintentionally-biased framing, have you read this article? At every point she addresses, Jen either adds in a concept that Mallorie never said, or simply attacks her own strawman- the whole time misrepresenting the fundamental idea that Mallorie (whose empathy we would do well to emulate) was trying to convey in her letter. Ironic, Jen, that you esteem yourself the skeptical movement’s patron saint of boob jokes: the only boob in this post is you.
Ugh. She’s the one who’s been infecting various discussions with equalist crap and derailing about ‘people’ when we’re talking about shit men do to women.
He made this whole Youtube video in which he seriously compares universal healthcare to false imprisonment. Big fan of the fake equivalence/stretched analogy school of argument, which the post Jen is responding to is also long on.
I have the same problem. I consider him a bit of a role model when it comes to presentation when I write. Which unfortunately implies I like his emotional style. I think the problem with the “Skeptical Figureheads” that come off as sexist is that they have a bit of an empathy problem. The are good at the anger part of the message, but not so good at the empathy.
Penn Jillette is absurdly overrated and frequently — as you point out, in so many words — intellectually dishonest. If he is, as Jen says, “a major celebrity in the skeptical movement,” that just demonstrates the need for greater skepticism within the movement.
Interesting question Jen. Do you think you could coexist with an atheist woman like this in an atheist community, or would you two be necessarily mutually exclusive? I’m just curious how far you go in rejecting her viewpoint. I’m with you in your critique of her recommendations for the movement, but does she get to have a personal opinion (one with which we disagree)?
I can tolerate people – men or women – who have personally had great experiences and are genuinely unaware of the bad things that happen. Glad they’re not experiencing them, since that’s our goal.
I can tolerate people who are not personally bothered by experiences that other women are made uncomfortable by. Maybe they have super duper thick skin or just don’t have the time to care about it.
I can tolerate people who are not personally bothered by experiences that other women are made uncomfortable by, and who also don’t understand why those other women are made uncomfortable. Not everyone is well versed in sexism, and no everyone is good at empathy. I will try to explain why these things make women feel uncomfortable, but I can tolerate them.
I CANNOT tolerate people who tell women to stfu with their complaining, mischaracterize their concerns, and encourage men to continue with harmful behavior. That’s just vile and cruel.
Very fair.
That was very well said.
But she never said STFU. She said (paraphrasing): don’t change guys, and don’t feel like you have to treat me specially, and don’t feel like you’re horrible people because of your genitalia.
Are you fucking kidding? You’re going argue semantics?
Fine. She didn’t say “STFU, women who complain,” she said “Men, don’t listen to those women who complain.” Totally different.
*slow clap* Congratulations. You get a shiny star for your superior powers of reading comprehension. Now go away.
1 – smartass.
2 – she didn’t say that either, verbatim or otherwise.
3 – screw you, I’ll leave after when I think the added effort is no longer worth it to debate on here anymore.
Can’t nest replies any further, so here you go, just in case you really are this dense.
Directly from the letter:
“…you seem to have been told that you’re awful and need to change. Again, apparently because your genitals imbibe you with an inescapable assholism. Please never believe this lie… ”
“And I’d like to slap the silly assholes who have given you the idea that you have mistreated me.
With all of my heart I beg you: Do not change. Do not change for me, do not change for someone else. “
I could pull something out of pretty much ever paragraph, but that might get a bit long. Probably easier for you to just go re-read the letter.
If you would like to explain to me how she has not told the men she’s addressing not to listen to the women who are talking about sexism, I am all ears. Just let me pop some popcorn.
I’ve always thought it was an empathy negligence problem.
These folks have not lived the experience so they don’t understand it. This makes them unintentionally pretend that parts of the experience don’t exist when they think about the problem.
It’s a concepts problem, they don’t have the concept, so they don’t know how to talk about it. The issue for me is how to get them to understand that.
I’ve wondered the same, often, and at length.
I was guilty of that lack of empathy as a teenager; I experienced sexism but internalized the *shit* out of it and was proud of being ‘one of the guys’ when I was allowed to be. I think that the aggregate of experiencing more sexism (starting to play a MMORPG as a woman was… eye-opening), and beginning to read serious, well-articulated accounts of sexism and combating it was what tipped the tables. Having realized just how much privilege can blind people to the problem of sexism, it was then an easy transition to realize that I had quite a bit of privilege of my own (white, cis, able-bodied) and to learn to listen rather than talk in conversations about the application of the types of privilege I partake in.
But breaking that complacence in the first place isn’t easy, and the way it happens I think is necessarily rather individual.
Relevant tweet from Penn from 5 hours ago
“She’s reacting to a very specific incident in one little skeptic group.”
Note that the this woman did not post on a blog, but as a relatively unformatted message on a personal website. Note further some of the language..
“More recently I have noticed a trend among men in my communities…”
She appears not to be commenting on the national or international skeptical community, but literally about her friends and acquaintances. This would also explain why Penn is utterly confused by the response from Jen and others. It is highly likely there is no real disagreement of substance here.
Such backpedaling. She refers to “THE skeptical community” and “the movement” and “trends.” That hardly sounds like an isolated incident in a group of 10 people to me. And that doesn’t excuse Penn at all – he tweeted it fully supporting it, and KNOWING what the whole skeptical community has been talking about.
I don’t think it’s fair to call it backpedaling, as that would imply a second action following an original action against which one needs to backpedal. The quote above is from the same letter.
I do agree the terms are confusing. Community can mean many things; certainly we here in the atheist blogosphere usually use it in the broad sense. Still, I think it more kind to presume honest lapses in word choice over wanton sexism and ignorance, until we can determine it for sure.
Certainly, Penn has no truck with anything you are saying. He has tweeted you and a dozen other people saying “I don’t think we disagree at all about how people should be treated”. Is it absolutely necessary to immediately assume the worst and start attacking?
You said “He (is) saying “I don’t think we disagree at all about how people should be treated”.
That’s not inconsistent with the problem Jen is noting. Yes, Penn and Mallorie agree with Jen on how people – specifically women, in this case – should be treated. But Mallorie appears to be dismissing the possibility that other women are NOT being treated that way within the skeptical community, and Penn is reinforcing that by publicizing her post.
There’s not a disagreement here on what SHOULD happen – the disagreement is on what IS happening.
Yes. Plus, Jillette knew what the climate was online before he posted the link to her post. Whatever she was thinking about when she wrote it, Jillette knew about the rape jokes about a 15 yr old debate before he linked to it.
She is indeed reacting to a very specific incident, and that’s exactly what makes her open letter — and Penn Jillette’s endorsement of it — so repulsive. The reaction and the endorsement are utterly stupid and completely inappropriate.
I don’t want to believe it’s a problem either.
But there do seem to be many women pointing out some bad experiences, some bad treatment they’ve experienced. Or pointing to documented stuff I can see for myself, like blog posts and comments.
And then there’s the fairly compelling evidence of the relatively low turnout of women to our groups and events.
So while I don’t (think I) witness much of these problems in my local group, and like to think I’m not a (significant) source of any such problems, it seems kind of hard to escape seeing a significant amount of evidence that there appears to be a problem to at least some degree. It doesn’t require agreeing with every point every feminist makes to see said evidence.
Of course, even if seeing the evidence there’s another step of caring. (Which I do for various reasons I think are important, but that’s another subject.)
I have the same experience I think. I’m a woman and I have found my local skeptics group to be really inviting and comfortable. But we are a small group and have a fairly good proportion of women in the group and running it. (New Zealand skeptics is currently headed by chair entity Vicki Hyde, who is awesome).
I want to think that all the groups are like that, but the evidence that other women are having problems is pretty compelling.
I can’t help it but when I read “chair entity” I envisioned something that was a cross between Cthulhu and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (May His Noodliness be praised. And served with a nice marinara sauce. Oh, and some garlic bread. Mmmm…garlic bread.)
That is what they want you think. I believe that the decision to go with ‘chair entity’ came about at the same time as a small town in the central North Island that had declared itself a republic elected a goat as their president. That goat won fair and square and it was a wake up call to organisations that person-ist attitudes may have to change.
You stated it perfectly. Patron Saint for sure! Thanks.
I used to feel like her, but I just hadn’t had the experiences myself nor heard much from others about what they saw and heard. Keep speaking out.
Penn is about to drop a serious load of ignorant, belittling mansplaining on you. Just a heads up.
I actually kind of doubt that. I was on Twitter watching this whole ordeal unfold. Penn apologized. Here’s what he said:
‘@jennifurret I don’t believe you and I have any real difference in opinion on how people should be treated. I’m sorry.’
That’s a classic notpology. It’s even more notpology than english.
And what’s with the ‘we have a difference in opinion’ anyway? Has he never heard of the phrase ‘You’re entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts?’.
Really, Penn is losing sceptical points by the bucketload.
His show has been on for HOW many years?
I’ve never understood the reverence he gets to begin with.
I thought for a while “well, that’s just the show, it’s a gag, it can’t always get it right, maybe they need to layer on the sexism because it’s Showtime, etc.” but then I heard him interviewed on other shows, a recent example being Marc Maron’s podcast.
I just don’t get the hero worship for this guy.
I admit that much of my dislike is simply a personal reaction. Not all of it is a reaction to the creepy sexism in his show…
Some came from the shows where they were ridiculously wrong.
Some comes from the times when he starts preaching his bizarro Randian religion.
Some is just personal stuff like the times I’ve heard him express his disdain for “hippies” and liberals etc.
So I have to admit that in large part my reaction is personal. The guy makes my skin crawl.
Because of my deep prejudice against libertarians, I don’t hold Penn Jillette in high regard. He’s an excellent stage magician. As a human being he’s an excellent stage magician.
Mansplaining = not a sexist term at all.
“wahhh, what about the menz???”
::eyeroll::
But this is exactly the point, isn’t it? Those who condemn sexism and then turn around and use sexist terms are hypocrites! And it’s all over blogs here and at Skepchick.
Oh dear…fuckwit dropping wedge issue in isle one!
Because when an oppressed group comes up with a sarcastic term for the condescension that the oppressors use on them, it’s just the same as oppression? Christ, check that fuckin’ privilege, or trade with somebody. I’m sure they’d like the view for a bit.
Seems like it’s describing a sexist act.
Or do you believe observation creates reality?
Hi, I’m new here. Couple of honest questions: (1) Can a woman be guilty of “mansplaining”? (2) How does one avoid “mansplaining” when explaining something, if that one is a man and the listener is a woman? Just trying to avoid being slandered as an oppressor. Thanks.
1) Yes. 2) Mansplaining is a terrible word. To me, it is when a persons explanation to you (the confused listener who has asked a question) is condescending and suggests the question was stupid and you’re simple for having asked it and needing an explanation, rather than addressing your issues. It’s not so much a gender thing, as a dismissal of a person’s argument because of who they are rather than what they are saying. Bad managers do it to their staff.
(1) I dunno. Could a black man be guilty of whitesplaining slavery?
(2) From how I understand it, you’d only have to avoid being dismissive when dealing with sexism or insisting what she’s experiencing isn’t an issue. That is, of course, just a general rule of thumb. Honestly just be open to being wrong and you should be fine.
Slander? How’re you being slandered?
I want there to be a way for a group to be welcoming to both the women who are like Jen AND the women who are like Mallorie (and women who are not like either of them). I’m just wondering how we can work that out.
Like this:
Jen acknowledges Mallorie and women like her experienced what they say they’ve experienced.
Mallorie acknowledges Jen and women like her experienced what they say they’ve experienced.
Note, Jen is already doing her part. Mallorie is not.
I think what he may be referring to is how to have a group for women who do not appreciate being hit on, do not appreciate sexist jokes, and who feel uncomfortable with the male:female ratio, and yet still attract the women who do enjoy those things. For example, I do enjoy those things. One of my favorite things to say when a guy asks for a favor (please hand me a pen) is to ask if he would like a “sammich” with that. I would hate our student group if it was completely guarded and we could flirt and make jokes. But some jokes take it too far.
However, it’s also important that it’s made clear that everyone is respected as a person, and valued for their intellect and character. It’s very hard to make the group feel welcoming to both parties, where one feels safe to not be sexually harassed, and the other feels safe to be candid and uncensored around their peers. Our group, in my opinion, does a fairly good job, although I can’t speak for other women.
Perhaps we should start including workshops in the leadership conferences that present both sides of the argument from experts.
There’s a very simple way to make a community welcoming to women of all levels of tolerance/appreciation for various types of interaction:
Start from a place of respect.
None of the arguments from the feminist side of the table are telling anyone to treat us all exactly the same. I will laugh at boob jokes. I will *rip faces off* for ‘get back in the kitchen’ jokes. Know how you find out what will offend me or make me feel threatened and what won’t?
Treat me as an individual and bloody ask me. I hear that’s effective.
Or don’t ask, and set your personal bar for how ‘polite’ you are in interacting with me as high as possible until I show you through my own jokes and interactions with people what I’m okay with. If you overstep, and upset me, own up to it and apologize. I’ll almost certainly forgive you. If you flirt with me, respect my stated boundaries, which may very well be quite different from my friend’s boundaries.
Respect that I am a person – individual and worthy of individual respect.
That’s really all that’s needed, in the skeptical community or anywhere.
I should probably clarify, in case you (Samantha) read my previous comment, that your post triggered my somewhat verbose response indirectly. I don’t think you’re advocating anything different, and going back and re-reading what I wrote, I fear it could come off that way. So, that’s not how I meant it. :)
I know this is a minor point, but doesn’t ‘imbibe’ mean ‘to drink’? She talks about our genitals imbibing us, and I’m just WTF!?!
Yeah, those people who say (essentially) ‘I’ve never experienced this, so obviously it’s never happened to anybody’ give me the urge to smack them with a wet halibut.
Yeah, I was put off by that, too. She probably meant “imbued” or something. Of course, I was waaaaay more put off by her obtuseness.
I assumed she meant imbued as well. Unless she meant to use ‘imbibe’ to mean the absorption or acquisition or taking in of knowledge through the genitals. But in that context, imbues seems to make more sense – not that she’s making a ton of sense here but you know what I mean.
Do not taunt Rule 34.
Dood, a literal decade too late.
Penn has always struck me as the kind of person who would prone to flinging “anti-PC” excuses around to deflect real concerns. Maybe it was when his show “Bullshit” began to devolve into libertarian ranting that I got that impression. Heh. Doubt he’ll change. Hope I’m wrong, though.
I watched this whole Twitter saga unfold. Read the article myself. I have to say, as much as I like Penn, he was most certainly in the wrong on this one.
But, don’t you know Jen? “It works for me” is such a powerful, sceptical piece of evidence to any claim!
(the [sarcasm] tags were so convincing the editbox left them out…)
This is the basic tenet of Libertarianism, though. “I’m alright, Jack.”
For the first paragraphs I relied on Jen to point out the bad arguments, but when I got to this “Don’t ever adulterate yourselves in an attempt to try to lure more vagina possessing patrons.”
“Lure”?
Since when is trying to make our group more open and inviting luring?
And don’t get me started on the rest of that abomination of a sentence.
Great break down, @MallorieNasrall promises to respond. I hope she does and addresses your points and doesn’t fall into victim blaming and straw arguments.
Jen, I find it unfortunate that your entire response is little more than telling people what you think I was trying to say. Apparently you believe that you can speak better for me than I can.
I dispute your claim that there are droves of women who are seen as nothing more than sex objects. But you are the pro at explaining people’s view points to them, so who am I to argue.
I am sorry it offends you to your core that women are given compliments on their looks. While I understand this being annoying it is not an egregious offense, and I have to inform you, you do not speak for all women, perhaps some of us don’t mind?
Without evidence I am sorry your claim that there are large numbers of women who are pressured in to sex, yet fail to report it is absolutely worthless.
And lastly internet attacks =/= skeptical community. If you are legitimately fearful you need to report it to police. They handle that.
So this somehow invalidates my experience? I’m not allowed to share my experiences, or love of the community because of this?
Really, because I have personally experienced such demands first hand. Additionally based on the responses my letter received, others have too. People behaving according to the personal standards of some members has become one of the prominent topics of discussion.
And again, none of this invalidates my experience, I have been treated as equal. The first group of people to seriously involve my genitalia Has been Neo-feminists.
You seem to think my letter was specifically to you, it was not. Unless you have been privy to every conversation and essay I have, you can not say “No one is saying all men are XYZ”. Very publicly I have seen people rage at the actions of a man, where they were have been brushed off had they been the actions of a woman.
Again, others obviously share this experience, it is unfair for you to dismiss our experiences as invalid. Unless you feel only negative experiences that fit your view are valid.
Well damn I feel like I should be saying “third straw-man” to you, being that it has been you who has pointedly and deliberately put words in my mouth.
I hate to inform you of this, but you do not speak for all women, you do not get to say what is being asked for and what is not. I’m glad you like boob jokes, really I am, they are fucking great. But this does not mean you are all women. You are guilty of the exact thing you have accused me of: attempting to make your own viewpoint represent that of everyone.
To add to that, our boundaries are different, and what constitutes a joke to me, likely may not to you.
Yeah just attempt to invalidate dissenting views with more straw-men!
Keep in mind here, I am addressing the concept of systematic change in the community. A community which has been nothing but awesome to me. I hope you can understand that I am not encouraging beating up the gay kid.
But it was really nice of you to act like thats exactly what I meant.
I’m sorry you feel my joy at acceptance, and friendship can be reduced to “I’m not an icky girl”.
And I’m sorry I am able to celebrate the very thing you claim to have been demanding, which is not being judged for my gender, while you can only twist it in to the above statement.
Wow, correct me if I am wrong but did you just call me loose? And so what if I am?
Congrats, you have added ad hominem to the fallacies you have committed.
This is no Straw-man, it is a statement of personal preference.
You do not get to decide when I find it appropriate for men or women to offer me sex. Your personal standard of propriety =/= universal rules on when and where to offer sex. You are not the law maker for what women find appropriate. And you absolutely do not get to demand that all people follow your arbitrary personal rules. You get to decide that for you, I get to decide it for me. Thats how it works.
It would be one hell of an affront to biology if I were honestly stating that men are not aware that I do not have a penis, but rather a vagina.
There is a large difference between socially and intellectually being treated equally, and the biological fact of sex. I am wondering why that even needed saying.
Well I am relieved that you’re glad, for a second there it sounded like you wanted to dismiss my experience, and be grumpy about it.
I have no idea how my voicing of preferences and experiences dismiss or invalidate yours.
Maybe you should spend a little more time listening to what “you side” is saying.
You have taken my celebration at the years of friendship I have had, and turned it in to a personal insult.
Apparently because I dared to have an experience that differed from yours, and probably a different sense of propriety.
You and those like you do not get to speak for all of us, you dont get to say what we like and do not like, you dont get to say when and were we find sex appropriate, you dont get to determine how far our sense of humor extends.
And you certainly dont get to speak for me, so please stop attempting to do so.
This is a perfect example of:
A) backpedaling, and B) doubling down (depending on the paragraph).
I dispute your claim that there are droves of women who are seen as nothing more than sex objects.
That’s a dismissal of their experiences then. Which you claimed that you’re not doing.
Passive-aggressive bullshit.
Passive aggressive bullshit that is also a strawman. Please provide a reference to where Jen actually did that, please.
Please point to where Jen claimed she was ‘speaking for all women’. Jen has repeatedly said that she is speaking on behalf of:
Making shit up, Mallorie, doesn’t improve your argument.
You appear to be quite ignorant of the research on things like ‘under-reported crime’, which includes sexual assaults and affects many other facets of life too.
Please address this absence in your education before commenting in the future. Assuming that you don’t wish to appear to be an ignorant fool, of course.
Yet more passive aggressive bullshit.
Your experiences are not invalid. Your claims that people within the skeptical community don’t need to change are invalid. Stay on point.
It is unfortunate that there are people out there who are both priviledged and unreasonably demanding. It is unfortunate that Jen stated her claim as a universal negative, which requires only one selfish and uniformed individual to stand up and demand (actual) special treatment in order to invalidate.
However, if you were interested in an actual discussion here, rather than simply metaphorically hurling faeces, you’d have understood Jen’s point to be that the people-who-are-speaking-from-a-feministically-informed-perspective aren’t demanding special treatment.
You’re aware of the concept of ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’, right?
If so: mystery solved.
If not: please go educate yourself.
I’m going to stop highlighting this now, it’s become tiresome.
When someone quotes you, and offers an interpretation of what you are saying, they are not ‘putting words in your mouth’. They’re quoting you.
You don’t like the interpretation? That’s fine: clarify what you mean. That you spoke unclearly in the first place is no-one’s fault but yours. Jen’s interpretation of your words is not unreasonable. Her interpretation is, of course, possibly incorrect: please offer clarification.
This attempt at blaming the interpretor for the ignorant words originally spoken is just bullshit.
Given that Jen has clearly and specifically outlined precisely who she is speaking for, you’re just bullshitting. Please stop.
As is Jen. Thanks for noticing.
When there are people who are homophobic (to the point of harming gay kids) in the skeptical community, and you say “don’t change”: then yes, yes you are encouraging beating up the gay kid.
How about you write less ambiguously and stop pretending that what you wrote has only one possible correct interpretation? Also: dropping the passive aggressive bullshit would be nice too.
No, you did.
You said “keep trying to fuck me”. Jen quoted you, and then you accused her (basically) of quoting her.
This is beyond ridiculous. I’m done at this point.
Mallorie: you’ve said some extremely stupid shit. Now, you can own up to it and clarify what you meant (I, for one, don’t think an apology (except for lack of clarity) is in order), or you can continue to pretend that the problem is with everyone else.
I’m hoping on the former.
Brian, you’re slut-shaming Mallorie! You misogynist pig!
There is this thing called context, and I think you broke it down, spat on it, and then threw some feces on it. Your post was long, but in the end I think you over-analyzed things that didn’t exist, and ignored things that did. I would go and find all the points that you said Jen didn’t say something, then pull out the context of where she did, but at some point the return on investment isn’t worth the effort, and with no evidence it’d be possible to change your mind, I’m not going to bother.
Mansplainin’? Or not? (And, please, I want an explanation, not a mansplanation–thanks.) By the way, I’m being flippant, I admit it, but I am sincerely skeptical about this concept.
But she didn’t dismiss your experiences, while you did dismiss ours. And you didn’t just celebrate your good experience, you told people to go right on doing what they were doing, despite the fact that so many hundreds of women have been harmed and put off from the skeptical community by it. There’s a big difference between saying, “I’ve had a great experience, I’m sorry other women have had bad ones,” and saying “I’ve had a great experience, so don’t listen to or change to accommodate the people who have had a bad one.” The absolute worst is saying you don’t mind when people treat you in a way that makes so many others feel belittled and dehumanized, so therefore that behavior is just fine. Telling people to go on with behavior that is harmful to others because it doesn’t bother you is unconscionable, in fact. Why would you do that?
And, because I’ve just seen how you operate, and I’ve unthinkingly put paraphrases in quotation marks, no, I don’t mean to misquote you there. You obviously didn’t say it was fine for people to go on with harmful behavior because you don’t acknowledge that the behavior is harmful. You told them to go on with behavior that many, many women have said has harmed us, because you, personally, are fine with it and don’t find it harmful to you, specifically. That’s not OK.
“Why would you do that?”
I think that’s an excellent question, and one that many people on the ‘feminist’ side of these arguments could do with giving some thought to. The answer, of course, is that (some) people are asking for wholesale changes to a culture in which she feels comfortable – essentially destroying it and replacing it with another one.
Can you really not see why some people would be unhappy with others pushing for changes to something they like just fine as it is?
There was a culture of serfdom and starving, too.
Should we worry about the discomfort of those comfortable in that culture?
Unless that wonderful culture is based on treating women as bags of meat to be fucked, then what the ‘feminist’ side are asking for is to be treated exactly as the men are. So what would change exactly?
Apparently, you didn’t read Jen’s post very clearly before you started the passive-aggressive victim pose, so let me help:
…so, exactly where did Jen claim to speak for every woman? For the love of cheese, at least have the maturity to acknowledge that those whose experiences aren’t as positive as yours (a) exist and (b) might have a reason to want change so that more woman can have a positive experience with other skeptical folk.
Signed, a so-called “silly asshole” (your words on your own post, not mine) silly enough to expect better for everyone
No, she just pointed out that you were implying that the women that you were criticizing were prudes (or as Jen put it, “sexless naggers”).
You and those like you do not get to speak for all of us, you dont get to say what we like and do not like, you dont get to say when and were we find sex appropriate, you dont get to determine how far our sense of humor extends.
Absolutely, I couldn’t agree with you more. As you’ve said, people’s boundaries are very different, a large number of women within the skeptic community have said they feel uncomfortable with certain behaviours and remarks directed at them. [Most] People are not saying that these behaviours are necessarily wrong (although some patently are), simply that you should respect a women’s boundaries. If of course, like you, she is happy with certain behaviours and explicitly makes that clear, then go nuts, nothing is wrong with two consenting adults enjoying whatever they want. It’s simply a matter of respecting the wishes of the person you’re engaging with.
It says something about this whole “discussion” that I can’t remember which party wrote the quoted passage. But I’d say if it was Jen, it’d be a damn sight more justified.
In this entire comment you pretend like the point of your previous post was just to say that you’ve had wonderful experiences in the skeptical community and have never felt uncomfortable in any way due to your gender. If that was the post you wrote, no one would care, but it’s not. The post you wrote said that you’ve had wonderful experiences in the skeptical community and have never felt uncomfortable in any way due to your gender, so the women who say different should stfu or be ignored.
Jen accepted your experiences as genuine and was happy for you. Her problem was with the whole “the skeptical community and its members shouldn’t change because some women (me) are perfectly happy” argument.
+1
If Mallorie’s point had been “I don’t have a problem with the community’s behavior, so don’t change for me,” I don’t think anyone would have objected. Unfortunately, the point that came across (whether intended or not) was “I don’t have a problem with the community’s behavior, so don’t change for anyone.”
That perspective is seen as going beyond expressing your opinion to dismissing the opinions of others.
I just re-read the original article (a few times), and there is only one small fragment where she dismisses other people’s opinions: “With all of my heart I beg you: Do not change. Do not change for me, do not change for someone else. You’re wonderful, just the way you are.”
You could pull out sentences that imply otherwise, but in context every single one of those is saying something different. It’s all about protecting men from feeling like they have to change their behavior for the sin of being male. That’s it. That’s all.
So when people like Jenn (and you guys) start implying (and outright saying) that Mallorie dismisses the viewpoints of all these poor abused raped and victimized souls, using horribly logical fallacies, and being protected by a arrogant boys-club mentality, it’s a bit crazy.
Yeah, she may have only directly said it once, but it was by far the most significant conclusion of her piece that everything else built up to. The rest of piece was explaining why they don’t need to change and/or shouldn’t feel the need to change.
It doesn’t take a rhetorician to realize that it’s very common to only directly state your main thesis one time, especially in a post on the internet.
Right on.
this.
Bingo.
She had her own, well labled conclusion section, and it disagrees with yours. The whole conclusion is:
“Don’t lever let someone make you feel bad for being you, for being male, for being funny, don’t ever believe the lie that us delicate girls can’t take being hit on, can’t keep up with filthy jokes, can’t argue you blue in teh face, and need special treatment”
So you saying that the conclusion is about dismissing other people’s opinions, you’re just seeing what you want to see. It’s like a Rorschach test or something.
So if someone is inclined to be racist, bigoted, or homophobic, they should go on with their lives and never let anyone make them feel guilty for being them?
If they think that their jokes about blacks are funny regardless of whether or not people are laughing, they shouldn’t let people make them feel bad for “being funny”?
“Be yourself” is a long-standing bromide, but its limit is, broadly, the rights of others to be themselves as well. If you contribute to the marginalization or oppression of others, their freedom to be themselves is similarly trammelled. As in society, your freedom to do things is (and should be) limited in a fashion that allows most people most freedoms, rather than complete freedom for some and none at all for others.
So yes. There are circumstances when people _should_ feel bad for being who they are, and should strive to change. And Mallorie’s conclusion is that this is not the case, and the opinions of those who are hurt by an individual being “who [they] are” don’t matter. That is how she is being dismissive of others’ opinions.
An interesting take, but it’s far enough away from what her actual words were that I still think it’s a case of seeing what you want to see. This would assume that her audience is homophobic, racist, bigoted, or otherwise unpleasant to the point of limiting your freedoms. Instead, it is heavily implied that her audience is the dirty-minded, well argued personal friends that feel like they have to hide those aspects of themselves whenever they’re around skeptical girls (IE, her).
@nathanlee – You’re right. I’m being unfair to Mallorie, at least in the context of her original article. She thinks that her buddies are fine the way they are, and is telling them so. (I’m not so sure about her doubling down in the comments, though.)
But the issue here is that the support from Penn suggests that this can be applied more broadly, when it cannot. What is suggested is that people ought not to feel bad when they make other people uncomfortable or exclude them for no reason other than their genetic makeup, which is manifestly untrue.
If someone tells you, directly or indirectly, that they’re alright with dirty jokes, that’s fine! But if doing so makes them uncomfortable, and you’re aware that it does, then “being yourself” is being an asshole.
@Steven – not really. Say that someone is inclined to use the word “fag” in a pejorative sense. Someone tells them that they find the term offensive when it’s meant to disparage. They may not be consciously homophobic, but their use of the word is, and ignoring someone’s discomfort to “be yourself” would be the same in that situation as it is in this. Whether someone is born with XY or XX (or other permutations) is beyond their control, and they should not be forced to bear unwarranted societal burdens because of it.
@The Artful Nudger (again)
In summary:
1 – You admit your being unfair to her article.
2 – Because Penn supports his friends article, it now can be applied to everyone, and it means something that neither Penn nor Mallorie ever said nor implied.
Because of this, I post comments in a forum for an entire freaking day fighting against people calling both Penn and Mallorie misogynistic privileged straw-man toting dumb people.
And this is why Mallorie’s post is so passive aggressive.
@Nathanlee -
Clearly, you weren’t reading my reply beyond “you’re right”. I was being unfair by suggesting that the article itself was originally meant for a venue outside of her small group of friends.
The “conclusion” you quoted above, however, is _absolutely_ dismissive of others’ opinions, in a broader context. So your argument, that there’s nothing of substance here, is wrong. But you’re right in that she didn’t originally intend it to be taken broadly.
You know, I usually keep out if these shitstorms because I don’t feel like I belong to your community, and because my atheist group is amazing, and like you I never felt harassed. Hell, I haven’t even been harassed in my gaming communities, nor in my WOW server! But after the call to action by JT this week I really feel I should add my voice and strength to this.
Mallorie, I believe, from your post, you are simply impervious to sexism as it exists all around you. You said yourself you always were in “sausage fests”, and you seem to feel the problem other women have is with crass jokes and flirting. This tells me you realize some of the jokes and flirting around you could be seen as sexist, but you are immune to them and so all others should be too. This is, in itself, priviledge. You are priviledged in the way that your personal boundaries were never challenged, never ignored, and this makes you blind to sexism. But the fact that this is due to your ‘thick skin’ does not mean everyone should have the same thick skin. Just because you’re not offended, that doesn’t give you the right to declare no one should be offended. On the contrary, you should take special attention that your words and attitudes don’t alienate others whith thinner skin.
The answer from that 15 years-old to that shitstorm was (slightly paraphrased) “that moment when you realize you’ll never be taken seriously in the atheist community..because you’re a girl”. Then, she changed accounts. The thing about ‘harmless flirty jokes’ is that they quickly become the only thing you hear, the only answer you get, and everything you were actually trying to say gets lost in the flood you called just by being female. This is NOT ok. Sexism is a FACT, no matter how invisible it is to you, or me. #mencallmethings exists because men ARE calling women awful things just for the sin of being female online. The feminist response exists BECAUSE we live in a sexist society. And you are joining the ranks of misoginy by trying to shut up the women who feel harassed, and by telling their harassers never to change. Go around the internet and see, really see, the way women feel about these things. Forget that if they were directed at you you wouldn’t care, focus instead on the experiences and feelings of those who lived it. You may have flexible boundaries, but wouldn’t you be equally upset if those were broken and ignored?
And before you start acusing me of trying to speak for every woman, I’ll give you a standart: something is offensive when it offends someone. Anyone. Then, it’s a matter of deciding what is more important: the offense or the person. Do you really want to alienate women just to keep your sausage fest? Do you think it is a worthy deal? If your crass joke turns away one single woman, one single voice of reason and atheism, one single person who could contribute to your cause in ways you don’t even know…is the joke worth it?
Well said!
You never got harassed on your WoW server? Must be nice. I remember one server that I learned quickly never to roll female N’elfs. But in fairness, that was just the one server my friend was one. I quickly transfered my remaining toon from there when she left…thank Elune.
Anyways, great reply! +1
Yeah, well said.
And… Man, you’re lucky, I stuck to RP servers and still got harassed ocassionally. Never for being a night elf, but I was rather the sort to stick my head up when trolls – no, not the horde kind – would roll into channels and start mucking things up.
Can I have some of your luck? ^-^
Looks like Mallorie had too much privilege, and is now excommunicated. A Judas ‘gina. An honorary misogynist.
I know this is a total side note, but can I just make a request that we STOP EQUATING GENITALS AND GENDER?
Are we seriously still doing this? Do you honestly believe that the only women who are experiencing misogyny are the ones who have vaginas?
cue the stupid “cis” stuff.
Yeah, and all of that “White”, “Christian”, “male”, “heterosexual” stuff is stupid too: obviously there are just regular people and Minorities, regular people and Heathens, regular people and Women, regular people and Queers, etc. I’m normal, you’re all Other.
Is marking the unmarked normative category for ascribed gender/biological-gender-as-identified-at-birth agreement REALLY so problematic for you that you have to go out of your way to denigrate the practice? Do you really not see why it might be important to point out, even when we’re talking about the majority, that not everyone is like that? While I don’t think it’s possible to account for every possible non-normative identity expression/performativity ever, the non-binary-gender-conforming group is only growing as it becomes incrementally safer to be out, and is large enough that I think it merits accounting-for, especially when we’re specifically talking about gender.
Don’t be a prick (sexism! sexism! male-anatomy-based slur!): even if you think “cisgender” is a stupid term, using it is a minor concession to make a whole lot of people feel better (and not going out of your way to call it “stupid” costs you nothing). Think about it in the same way one might think about not going through every comment and correcting the grammar for Standard Received English usage, instead focusing one’s energy on responding to the ideas in the posts.
Thanks for that.
Or are women at all?
Woe be the person who doesn’t follow gender norms or merely appears to in those places. Why would we want atheism/skeptics circles to be such a place?
Mallorie, your experiences and mine seem to be the same in skeptic communities. I’ve been the kind of woman who’s tended to have just as many male friends and female friends (if not more of the latter) and tend to have interests that tend to be male-dominated (comic books, sports, etc.). I have rarely been on the receiving end of sexist comments from friends, social groups or in professional milieus. I have never experienced sexual assault, been the victim of rape or sexual discrimination. I know good, kind and compassionate men who treat women as equals.
You know what the difference between us is? I’m not going around telling women who haven’t been as lucky as me that because I’ve never experienced sexual harassment or assault or discrimination within my skeptic community (or other traditionally male-dominated social circles), that those issues must not be a problem. Doing so silences those women and invalidates their experiences, and they get enough of that crap from our culture at large as it is.
When these women tell us these things have happened to them, they are not invalidating our experiences – if anything, their stories should highlight just how lucky we are to have escaped that kind of treatment and to be a part of communities that are supportive of us as women.
Instead of using your good fortune to silence women who haven’t been as lucky by implying that their stories are upsetting to the men you know and hurt their feelings, you should be working to make your good experiences shared by more women. The positive relationships you and I have had being treated equally and with respect by the men in our circles should be the norm shared by all women.
And those men whose feelings you are so concerned about? If they’ve never treated women as second-class citizens or acted in a sexist manner toward women, then they’re not the target of criticisms directed at the skeptic community’s apparently overall problem with women feeling discriminated against, and they’re smart enough to know that. They don’t need you or anyone else to preemptively protect them from criticism that’s not directed at them in the first place. If they’re the good men that you believe they are, they’ll be just as upset as we are about other men treating women in sexist and misogynistic ways. But if they’re only good to you because you’ve never attempted to challenge their behavior or unexamined privilege, then you might want to reconsider just how lucky you’ve been to have escaped the overt sexism and misogyny other women have experienced within other skeptic communities.
What she said!
Basically, Mallorie, you fucked up and wrote something stupid, borne from a place of unexamined privilege or perhaps sheer luck in personal experience. You have many people explaining to you point by point why what you wrote is so problematic. They’re not saying you’re a Bad Person, just that you wrote something thoughtless. Have the good grace to listen and perhaps apologize if you feel it’s appropriate; don’t double-down on your marginalizing apologetics by continuing to dismiss points that are raised while refuting points that no one raised.
This, a million million times this.
While I am almost stereotypically feminine in that I’d rather bake cookies than play video games and would rather cross-stitch than do anything sports-like, nevertheless most of my friends are men and always have been.
Even when I was 20 years younger and a lot of pounds slimmer I didn’t get TOO much harassment, although it was still there, depending on where I went.
My PERSONAL experience in the skeptic community as a woman has been great. I’m treated as an intelligent equal with skills and opinions worth bringing to the table. Naughty jokes have never gone beyond my personal comfort level and I’ve never been hit on. That may be as much because I’m a married, overweight, middle-aged woman (and thus not prime pick-up material), but in our group I’m quite sure I’d be treated just as well were I young and hot. We’ve got a lot of self-proclaimed feminist men in our group, and even those who don’t make that claim are decent, respectful guys.
HOWEVER – I don’t claim that MY experience is representative of all women. Not by a long shot. I know there are women who don’t like coming to our Skeptics in the Pub because it’s in a bar. Or because the bar is in a neighborhood they don’t feel safe in. Or because they feel overwhelmed by a lot of men who have had a beer or three. (our gender balance is better than a lot of other groups, I think, but it is still an imbalance)
If I was one of those women, and didn’t have the other events that we’re able to have here in Vancouver because of market size, I’d feel pretty alienated by the skeptical community. And I’d be pissed off about it.
(Let me add that the Vancouver group is not perfect – we’re human – but we’re pretty good)
I DO want people to change. I want them to be more open to others’ experiences and how that impacts participation in the community.
I find it unfortunate you think sexual harassment doesn’t exist, that it can’t impact the workplace and that a sexist environment (or any kind of environment that unfairly impacts a group) is impossible.
You know, I’m sure you think you have, but given how spectacularly you fail at reading comprehension, as demonstrated here in your reply to Jen, it’s a good bet that you fabricated such demands from far more reasonable requests.
Hmm. An apparent complete inability to type a single sentence that doesn’t include lying, distorting, logical fallacies or pathetic whining passive aggression. i can see why Whats-His-Name likes you.
An obedient little tap dancer.
Neo-feminists? Are those the kind that glow in the dark?
Wait a minute. Is this the same Mallorie who thinks that a 15 year old referencing her anus in a Reddit comment is an invitation and excuse for a thread full of rape jokes?
…um, is someone paying her off or something?
Huh. Holy shit, it is.
(I didn’t even see the comment above when I posted. Lucky guess?)
I bet a MAN is paying her off. Someone has some mansplaining to do.
And I’ll bet you feel clever for writing that, as well.
This was the EXACT example I was coming in here to post about. But if this Mallorie person is already brushing that off as a concrete example of precisely why many women feel uncomfortable in the skeptic community, then she obviously isn’t going to listen to anyone. She’s made up her mind and no other evidence will make her re-evaluate. Some skeptic.
The weird idea she has about flirting (“blood is nature’s lubricant”) might explain why she’s never felt uncomfortable or unwelcome. It’s not that she’s been treated as an equal, it’s that she doesn’t mind even the vilest displays of misogyny.
Must be inexperienced. Blood is not a good lubricant because drying blood is adhesive, while dried blood is brittle and sometimes sharp.
The fanfiction “My Immortal” suffered the same idea.
Well, I guess that should at least disabuse everyone of the notion that her post is entirely about some particular issue in some particular group that she is a member of, of which the wider skeptical community, Jen in particular, is unaware. It should also disabuse us of the notion that she isn’t aware of what’s been going on in the skeptical blogosphere of late with regard to sexism. She didn’t write this and post it into a vacuum, she has to own the fact that this post is relevant to elevator-gate and all the latest sexist crap from reddit atheists. So there’s context at least.
Yep, it is.
And as far as Penn Jillette, well… I’ll just shut up now.
Elevator gate, a horrible situation… of a woman not getting raped or threatened, or anything. I think some women want the privilege of ‘not being put in awkward situations’
Yeah, that would be pretty nice, actually. Though I don’t see how it’s a “privilege” i.e. “special law” or “special rule.” Most human beings don’t appreciate being put in awkward situations when it’s not necessary. And I’d say your boner does not qualify as making an awkward situation necessary.
Am I to understand that women requesting to not be put in awkward situations creates some sort of unbearable burden for men?
Yeah, and why do crazy bitches always need to jump off the handle and ask people not to do stuff they don’t like? Crazy irrational cunts, right?
Quick Elevatorgate rehash since some people can’t help but make shit up:
RW said she didn’t like constantly being hit on at skeptical conferences and later says she is tired and going to bed. EG follows her to the elevator and then propositions her using a commonly accepted euphemism for sex despite her clearly expressed wishes. RW says, no and they go on their merry way. RW later says “don’t do that” because EG had acted creepy and ignored her stated wishes.
She didn’t flip out, or bite the EG’s head off. She said “don’t do that” because it was creepy and disrespectful (i.e., it ignored her plainly stated wishes).
And then the Internet exploded with sexual-harassment apologetics.
“Irrational cunts?” Excuse me, but the female genitalia CAN be expressed as a division of two (w)holes. :P
(See, this is the sort of joke that I’d expect would actually be considered funny.)
Yes. I would categorise it as dry.
“Wait a minute. Is this the same Mallorie who thinks that a 15 year old referencing her anus in a Reddit comment is an invitation and excuse for a thread full of rape jokes?”
No, it’s not. There is no such Mallorie because that’s not what she wrote. If you actually read for comprehension, you would know she actually condemned such behaviour. Now go back and read again.
Gee? Really? What are the chances that there are two Mallorie Nasrallah’s who are equally dismissive of the topic of sexism and who both comment on FTB? No, they couldn’t possibly be the same.
Sorry, guess I wasn’t clear. I was not stating that the person named Mallorie posting there was not the same Mallorie posting here. My point was she did not state the position attributed to her. She did not say the comments joking about rape and the like were ok. Quite the opposite.
We apparently were reading different threads because she quite clearly and repeatedly characterized what happened in the linked thread on Reddit as mutual flirtation between a 15 year old girl and a bunch of guys of various ages, and accused the original poster of lying and distorting facts to cover it up.
1) Turns out you are correct. She did start making that claim. I apologize.
2) When citing a particular comment or set of comments, it is best to provide the exact url (like so) rather than expect someone to hunt through to at least the seventh fucking comment that person made, you ass.
Well! Now that we’re all talking past each other, and making accusations and inflammatory comments, I’m sure this will be resolved quickly and satisfactorily.
Good job, Internet!
I think “false equivalence” is actually my least favorite fallacy.
I completely agree. I was explaining this to someone last night when I said I liked to watch a particular program because the host usually tried to get many different viewpoints on the show. Person says “oh, opposite viewpoints.” I said, “No, different and legitimate viewpoints, but not always opposite.”
Depending on the presence of contradictions, at least one opposite would need to be wrong.
Why the obsessive conflation of genitals and gender? Besides being massively cis-sexist, it gives this article/rant/soliloquy the general feel of “Listen to this vagina that is just like all the dicks! and not those other whiny girly vaginas.”
I have had some seriously negative experiences with the only social atheist group in my area. If I hadn’t stuck through them and demanded that certain issues be taken care of, I would have no support in my town. Incidents like another member slapping me on the ass after a meetup, as a general trend in inappropriate physical behavior (from that one person). The founder of the group, when I presented him with what happened and asked him to talk to the perp, started whining about feminists saying they wanted equality, then asking to be taken care of. I managed to talk sense into him, that he had responsibility as the head of the group to stop such irresponsible and unwelcoming behavior, and please see it as you would a punch thrown instead of a slap on the ass, if you can’t see past the sexualized nature of the incident.
She appears to be addressing men who consider the vagina to be a woman’s most salient attribute. And women who are fine with that.
Just substitute “blacks” for women and “whites” for men. And then see if what she wrote makes any sense at all.
Anti-paternalism, anti-communitarianism, as in “get off my back, let me be!” is a faulty basis for forming any sort of religious/ philosophical opinion. What you complain about is the fruit of this.
Yes yes yes a thousand times this. This needs to be emblazoned in every discussion about any-ism in any community.
Mallorie had a perfect response to that, though. Unspecific anecdotal counter-evidence! Mallorie knows of at least one person at one time did ask to be catered to, so the whole argument is bunk.
D’oh! Foiled by the anecdote!
I’m still not sure how Mallorie doesn’t understand how dismissive she was of anyone who didn’t have exactly her experience.
But but but I like fart jokes!!
It’s weird how knowing that people don’t think like one or share one’s experiences in one area (for example, in this case, not believing in any sort of god vs. the majority that do) doesn’t translate into a realization that people might not share one’s perspectives/experiences in other areas as well, for many people. Corollary: frequently people who are ascribed some marginalized social positions fail to recognize their own privileged positions with respect to others.
Yeah, this. I’ve noticed that even most of the anti-sexist, anti-racist, queer-friendly social spaces are fairly clueless about neurotypical privilege, for instance. >.>
The more I see of Penn Jillette, the more I throw him into the category of “stopped clocks” in the sceptical community (which group also includes such paragons as Bill Maher, for instance). When these people are right, they often say some great and quotable things, but when they’re wrong, they’re so off-base that I wonder how they ever managed to get anythjng right in the first place. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
It’s never fun to have to relegate somebody to this category; if nothing else, it serves to reinforce just how rigorous we should all be with our reasoning at all times, and how careful we need to be to avoid confirmation bias and wish thinking. Just because we’re atheists and “sceptics” when it comes to all of the woo, doesn’t mean we’re automatically sceptical about everything: labelling oneself a sceptic does not always make it so; it requires diligence and I think a lot of people forget that.
As for Mallorie’s article, and subsequent response to Jen’s reply… Well, keep digging. I honestly can think of nothing else to say.
I would never, ever call Bill Maher a Skeptic. Partially because he is deep in to the alt-med woo-woo, but mostly because he doesn’t give lip service to being one. He cherry picks everything even when it’s not a hot button issue for himself and shows no evidence that he has even a partial understand of what methodological naturalism is. Maher is an Atheist, but not a skeptic.
Penn Jillette certainly has his bugbears where he isn’t very skeptical, but in other areas he is a damn good skeptic – far better than Maher will ever be.
One of my personal bugbears is when people mistakenly conflate skeptic and atheist.
Eesh. I really hate how FTB’s commenting system screws up FB login names. :-P
Good point, I suppose I ought to be using more precise language. Maher is not a sceptic. I was just using him as another example of the broken-clock phenomenon, as he was the first that came to mind.
Jillette has a much better track record than Maher in terms of how often he goes off the deep end, too. That just makes it all the more depressing to me when he does.
The ironic thing here is that McCreight complains that other women are naively extrapolating from their personal experience or the personal experiences of a selected few and from that offering suggestions for male behavior when McCreight, in fact, is guilty of the exact same thing.
I guess such a logical pirouette is only acceptable if it corresponds to what McCreight already believes.
The ironic thing about your post is that Jen does no such thing. Jen and other women in the skeptical community have experienced problems with sexist treatment from some men, and they argue that such treatment shouldn’t go on. Jen accepts Mallorie’s experience, but the fact that Mallorie has not experienced or has not felt uncomfortable due to such treatment, does not mean there isn’t an issue.
Some members of the gay community may be fine with being called queers or even fags, that doesn’t mean that it is acceptable behavior.
The same logic can be applied to McCreight’s case. Just because McCreight and a few other women has experienced sexism does not mean that it is a prevalent problem. This is the fallacy of biased sample / small sample and really just a form of anecdotal evidence (whether or not it actually occurred). You have to compare this with the number of women who has experienced equality, rather than sexism to properly evaluate the situation.
Either it is alright to extrapolate from personal experience or it is not.
Either anecdotes count as evidential support or they do not.
You cannot have it both ways!
Why does the experience of sexism count in favor of the hypothesis that sexism is a major problem if the experience of equality cannot be counted in favor of the hypothesis that sexism is not a major problem?
If you accept the possibility that there can be evidence for a position, you must also accept the possibility that there can be evidence against that position.
Try to apply your skepticism symmetrically instead of applying the strongest possible skepticism to things that goes against your expectations and beliefs and applying almost no skepticism to things that support it.
The cases aren’t symmetrical. Don’t you get that?
If a doctor looks at my chest x-ray and says there’s cause for concern, I shouldn’t feel better because a different doctor looking at an MRI of my brain doesn’t see a problem.
Some women have experienced sexism from some men in the skeptical community. Their concerns should be addressed. No extrapolation is necessary. You just accept that they have real concerns, and other women coming forward and saying they have not experienced sexism doesn’t change that.
The cases are certainly symmetrical. We have personal anecdotes from McCreight et. al. about male sexism. We have personal anecdotes from Nasrallah about getting treated equally by males.
Why is the anecdotes from McCreight incorrectly considered scientific evidence of male sexism whereas the anecdotes from Nasrallah about getting treated equally correctly considered anecdotes? This is the place where the asymmetrical skepticism comes into play. Two roughly identical things (personal anecdotes) are treated different, because one of them confirms your expectations and beliefs, whereas others contradict them.
Your analogy with imaging techniques is false, because (1) the analogy talks about scientific evidence, while what we have here are personal anecdotes, (2) the analogy talks about one specific person, whereas the situation has to do with two different people. A cause for concern about the chest affects the entire individual, whereas sexism against a particular female does not affect the entire group of women.
The bottom line here is that we cannot say that there is a problem with male sexism in the skeptic community just based of the anecdotes of McCreight and others. We do not know if these men are representative for skeptic males as a group and we have no scientific evidence for the position that these particular anecdotes are accurate.
Similarly, we cannot say that male sexism in the skeptic community is not a problem just based on the anecdotes of women like Nasrallah and others. For the exact same reasons; we do not know if the males that Nasrallah and others have been treated fairly by are representative for skeptic males as a group and we have no scientific evidence for the position that these particular anecdotes are accurate.
If it is the case that 1:5 or 1:10 skeptic males are sexist pigs, then we have a problem. If it is 1:100000 or 1:1 million, the situation looks different, especially if these latter figures are lesser than the population average for all males, skeptics or not. What if skeptic males are a lot less likely to be sexist than the overall population average? Then it makes little sense to select skeptic males for special critical consideration.
No one is denying that certain women in the skeptic community has experienced sexism from males. This is not under debate; it is a fact. The question is how frequent this is. This question cannot be answered by personal anecdotes from a few, as humans tend to remember things that confirm their beliefs and expectations and also remember very unpleasant things easier than average and mundane events and the problem of unrepresentative sample / lack of scientific evidence for the validity of specific anecdotes.
Here’s the thing, and it really shouldn’t be that difficult of a concept to grasp – if even one woman speaks out about having experience sexual harassment or discrimination within the skeptic community, it’s a problem that should be addressed. That kind of behavior is unacceptable on any level.
Thank you. It’s not a binary choice that the skeptical community is completely sexist or completely not sexist. The truth is that some segments of the skeptical community are sexist at sometimes. We should all be able to agree that sexism is bad and should be reduced from it’s current level to ideally zero.
Some of the people here sound like they were probably very convinced by Hermain Cain’s “there are thousands of women I haven’t sexually harassed” argument.
1 in 5 women have been raped, stalked, or other wise sexually harassed/assaulted. All of which goes unreported because of the belief that this sort of stuff is very rare and that anyone who points it out is either a liar or just making a big deal out of it. Just because you personally believe that this sort of stuff is a few personal experiences that don’t have any bearing on real life, doesn’t suddenly invalidate they have said has happened to them. It’s still wrong and it still needs to have a spotlight shined on it. If someone wants someone to stalk them, fine. I personally don’t and when I tell them to stop, that’s not permission for them to try harder.
It is unfair to compare rape with “sexual harassment” (which can be almost anything). It is also a suspicious figure because you say that all of this goes unreported. If it goes unreported, how did you acquire those figures?
At any rate, it does not mean that the majority of males are rapists or sexual harasser. You are also performing a host of statistical fallacies:
(1) even if 1/5 of females have been sexually harassed or raped or whatever does not mean that 1/5 of males do these things. There is nothing that says that there is a 1:1 correspondence between victims and perpetrators.
(2) the average says nothing of the spread. Even if we, for the sake of argument, assume that 1/5 of males are rapists or sexual harassers or whatever, it does not follow that 1/5 of skeptic males are doing that. The average says nothing about the spread.
Also, rape or sexual harassment is not the same as an occasional sexist comment.
Also note that you are performing the straw man fallacy; nowhere have I claimed that I know for certain that sexism in the skeptic community is a non-problem, just that personal anecdotes cannot be used to demonstrate this position.
If it all goes unreported, where do you get your 1 in 5 figure from? Is there a reliable source? It’s not from one of those questionaires where an unwanted phonecall counts as stalking is it?
Are you guys really going to try to come into this from a position of naivety? It’s not as though this topic hasn’t been being discussed for months. It’s been all of almost three weeks since the most recent round of CDC victimization data was released. Go read before you keep yammering about this: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/NISVS/index.html
Thanks Stephanie… not to mention that the reason I didn’t post it was because someone already had. I mean, seriously. And it’s back to the point of how people are calling these women do who report this stuff liars. How they personally do not believe the numbers, therefor, it doesn’t happen and those that say it does are making a big fuss out of nothing. (p.s. last numbers I saw gave it that rapist rape about 10 people before being stopped.. So, we’re talking 1 in 50). And no, I do not think that any certain community of people have a special immunity from these numbers. The other studies that go along those lines are just as frightening number wise. How men who are rapist not only understand the words ‘maybe later’ mean ‘no’, but if actually told no, think it means that woman deserves to be raped… and that they are just the person to do it.
What’s being asked of everyone is simple: Treat a person like a person (women included). And if you have to add a ‘I get it, but…’ then no, you don’t get it. Fail.
And we know that through the anecdotal experiences of women in the skeptical community, so clearly you do understand that the cases are not symmetrical. You agree that someone saying there is a problem means that a problem of some sort exists, but someone saying they haven’t experienced a problem does not tell us whether or not a problem exists. We aren’t discounting or treating Mallorie’s experiences any differently. But all she is telling us is that not every women in the skeptical community experiences sexism, but since no one ever claimed that, it isn’t very interesting.
You’re only disagreement appears to be with regards to the scope of problem. So, Jen is not “in fact, is guilty of the exact same thing” as a Mallorie as you originally claimed. Jen just believes from her own experiences and the numerous experiences that others have related to her that there is a significant problem, which you admit is different than Mallorie assuming there is no problem whatsoever from her own experience.
Here’s another analogy: Mallorie claims that all swans are white because she’s never seen a black one. Jen and others have seen black swans and say they do indeed exist. You then accuse Jen of claiming all swans are black and thus committing the same fallacy as Mallorie, when she has done no such thing. Then you backpedal and claim that it’s the same because Jen has made claims about the frequency of black swans (which she hasn’t), she’s only said there are enough that we shouldn’t ignore them. You then play the more skeptical than thou card by liberally sprinkling the term “scientific evidence” in your responses, which is a nice way of accusing the victims of sexism of being liars like Sylvia Browne or something. As I’m sure you’re aware, anecdotal evidence is often times the only available or even possible evidence especially with regards to social interactions.
Kudos to this, sir.
(Or ma’am.)
Two questions, Emil:
1. How many women need to speak out about sexism and misogyny in our community before you will believe it is a problem? 10? 50? 100? 1000? How did you arrive at this number?
2. Let’s say, hypothetically, tomorrow a study is released that definitively shows that sexist attitudes are prevalent in the atheist / skeptic community, and these attitudes are driving women away from our movement. What would you personally do differently (again, hypothetically) to help change this?
1. The figure does not really matter. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. What matters is actual scientific evidence. And not just evidence indicating that many women have some time during their life been exposed to sexist comments. We need to empirically quantify how often women get exposed to sexism from males compared with how often women do not get exposed to sexism (or exposed to equity) and how often males get exposed to sexism from other men as a control.
Only then can we quantify how large the problem is. How big does the difference has to be to be scientifically significant? This is a problem that plagues e. g. all clinical trials. If the statistical over-representation is statistically significant, then this just means that the results is unlikely to be due to chance. Statistical significance does not tell us anything about the scientific or clinical significance of the results. For that, we can use established values from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence or pick one that would convince us.
This value, like all values for clinical and statistical significance, will be arbitrary. But this does not mean that any value would convince us. A common threshold for statistical significance is p < 0.01. This is in some sense arbitrary (what it if was p < 0.011, would that really make that much of a difference?), but that does not mean that we would accept results where p = 0.90. If we did, then 90 out of 100 results would be due to chance alone. From that, we cannot reliably reject the null hypothesis.
2. I would publicly announce that I was wrong in my skepticism and carry out an intellectually slaughter those who did not consider it a prevalent problem. The shifting sands of evidence would have turned against their position, and those still clinging to the misguided notion, in spite of the evidence, would deserve all the criticism and ridicule they would get.
You do understand on some level that you’re being absolutely ridiculous right? The ideal level of sexism in any community is zero. It’s not really important whether or not the skeptical community is more or less sexist than the population at large. I think most people will agree that it is as a whole less sexist. I think even the “militant” feminists like Jen or Ophelia or Amanda Marcotte will agree with that. Exactly quantifying the level of sexism and comparing it against a baseline if it were even possible doesn’t get us very far.
You come off as straw-skeptic talking about the clinical trial that needs to be devised before any provisional determinations can be made. Different claims require different levels of evidence. That’s skepticism 101. If I told you I took the bus to work today, you’d probably believe me unless you had evidence to disprove my claim (e.g., the buses aren’t running today). If I claimed I flapped my arms and flew to work today, you’d rightly request solid evidence from me before believing such a thing.
So here’s the situation:
Many women have said they have experienced sexism in the skeptical community. A skeptic should then ask is it more likely that they are lying/mistaken or that they have in fact experienced sexism. With little to gain from lying and these being sane adult members in good standing in the community, we can safely provisionally assume that most of them probably actually experienced sexism (these aren’t extraordinary claims, so they don’t require extraordinary evidence). From there we can start looking for ways to fix the problem (i.e., treat people with respect, listen when people explain their boundaries, try to be more inclusive, etc.) even if some women come forward and say that they have not had similar experiences.
I think it’s a mistake to think that we have to wait for scientific data to figure out whether there is a problem or not. One reason is that scientific data may never materialize which would mean that we would never be able to say that there is a problem or address it if there is one. I think that if there is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence to support that there may be a problem, then it would make since that the community should take steps to address the problem. Also, even if there isn’t a problem and we take steps address the non-existent problem, what harm has been done? I cannot think of one. To me, it just makes sense to make a community as welcoming as possible to as many people as possible even if this requires some people to change their behavior.
If sexism is less prevalent in the Skeptic community, than in the larger community, then that is certainly a good thing. And kind of destroys the idea that sexism is keeping the female skeptic population low (why would you not join skeptic community because of sexism, when other places are much worse)?
Honestly by the comments and blog posts we have heard, you’d think sexual harassment and rape had reached epidemic proportions in the skeptical community.
Right. Because sexism is only a problem if sexual harassment and assault reach, as you put it, “epidemic proportions.” If it happens once in awhile or not on what you’d consider a large scale, we should just shrug and go “aw, that’s too bad” or just ignore it because it’s not a real problem.
You seriously don’t see a problem with this point of view? No one should ever be the victim of sexual harassment, no matter what the scale. Period. Sexism in any form is wrong. That fact that you seem to think it’s ok as long as sexism isn’t sexual harassment or assault at “epidemic proportions” speaks volumes, and none of it good.
Emil, I’m a scientist and statistician. You don’t have to explain to me how p-values work. I find it rather patronizing, actually. Your problem, however, is that you’re not considering the situation from a Bayesian perspective.
We know that sexism and misogyny exists in society at large. There is plenty of data supporting this point that I’m sure you’re aware of if you’ve been following this issue at all. That alone adds to what we label the ‘prior’ when it comes to determining what the ‘likelihood’ of the overall hypothesis is. Every time an atheist/skeptic woman comes forward and states that she has herself perceived misogyny in our community, this adds a little more weight to our prior, which increases the likelihood that our community, like many others, has a problem with misogyny. Notice I’m not saying how ‘extensive’ this problem is, because as others here have noted, who cares? Why would we tolerate any instances of such behavior?
Even if we stick to an empiricist’s perspective, you’re framing the situation entirely wrong. It’s a problem of the null hypothesis. Like I said, society at large has a sexist streak. You could argue this point, but I’ve encountered very convincing evidence that this is the case. It makes sense that subsets of society, being subsets, also contain sexism in some amount. What I’m trying to say here is that the null hypothesis should be that our community contains sexism. The alternative hypothesis should be that our community is unique in that it is sexism-free. Why, as an empiricist, aren’t you demanding evidence that our community does NOT contain sexism? What led you believe that the null hypothesis should be that our community is uniquely free of sexism? I am genuinely curious. I want to know how you arrived at this.
One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim or accusation. Making the claim that sexism is ‘prevalent’ among atheist/skeptic males is tantamount to stating that a majority of atheist/skeptic males are sexist. The burden of proof for claims of misconduct is called innocent until proven guilty in our society.
What would qualify as evidence for you? What are your standards of evidence?
I’ve been back and forth on this whole issue. I can sympathize with the females that feel like they’re being mistreated. That should not be happening. But it’s not like a Royal Order of Macho Men Club either. Not every male is immediately accepted in the skeptic community (or any community for that matter).
From a male point of view, looking in on the complaints, they seem silly on the surface. Elevator Guy? Some random dude that may or may not be part of the community trying hook up late at night in a hotel? Yeah, that happens, I’m sorry. 15-year-old girl on Reddit? I spent a couple days trying to participate on Reddit a year back and left extremely frustrated. It’s a community of immature, self-obsessed loudmouths. You don’t drop a piece of meat into a piranha tank and act surprised when they go ravenous. These are the most popular examples and do nothing to further anyone’s cause.
I’m a nice, quiet, intelligent guy. I’ve never been very popular with the opposite sex…overlooked constantly. When I hear women complain about being mistreated by people that are unquestionably going to mistreat I just get discouraged. I don’t feel very excited about helping them out if they’re going to continuously walk into shitty situations. When the jerks hear these stories, they know where they can find power. Rape threats and cat-calls are often used because these deviants know it hurts women. Men have other weak-points…we’re called “fags” or “white knights” if we try to stick up for women.
But you know what? I found the solution to be treated equal and not be abused…stay away from the piranha tank. I spent a couple days at Reddit, saw the abundance of asshattery, and never went back. This wasn’t a snapshot of MY community. These trolls were not MY skeptics. I did find MY community on Twitter, however. People who are more interested in intellectual discussion and people who care for each other. I think what Mallorie was getting at was that the Skeptic community can be good, as long as you know how to find it. Humans are going to act human no matter what community they associate themselves with. Everyone has there own social disorders and messy pasts. Assholes are easy to find, unfortunately.
Let me fix that for you:
You don’t speak for me or the male skeptical community at large.
Oh, you’re clearly a Nice Guy alright. “If women won’t sleep with me, then they deserve what they get.” That’s really nice. I hope somewhere deep down you do realize that plenty of genuinely nice guys are quite popular with women and do get laid regularly. You’re problem is not that you are nice.
Thank you, took the words right out of my mouth. :)
Wow, what a Nice Guy! How very nice of you to completely dismiss everything this is about and make it all about you and then wrap it all up in a nice layer of victim-blaming as the icing on the cake. So very considerate.
Maybe try listening, putting yourself in others’ shoes, and asking for clarification on their point of view, and if you still disagree, try calmly and rationally explaining why so that you can start a conversation… rather than condescendingly insisting to everyone that you’re a Nice Guy wrapped up in awesome and implying we’re just too dumb to realize what a Nice Freaking Guy you are.
Let’s draw an analogy: If a 15-year-old walks into a strange neighbourhood and ends up harassed or assaulted by a gang of thugs because she has boobs and is alone, who’s fault would that be? The 15-year-old? Or the gang that harassed and assaulted her?
Why, if it’s on the internet, is it her fault?
As a final note: Maybe it’s not smart for someone who’s not male to knowingly go swimming in the piranha tank that magically targets anyone who’s not male almost exclusively… but have you ever thought that what we’re saying is that there shouldn’t be a gender-specific piranha tank in the first place?!
Anyone who uses the terms “male” and “female” as nouns, I’ve found, never has anything really of value to say about gender. This is as true as the sun rising every morning. It’s a really nice filtering system.
It seems from my experience that it’s specifically a matter of using ‘males’ and ‘females’ when they mean ‘men’ and ‘women’ (or, sometimes, ‘men’ and ‘teenage girls and women’, for the creepier ones). I’ve seen contrary data points where ‘men’ and ‘women’ are used appropriately, with ‘males’ and ‘females’ as catch-all terms including all age groups.
You don’t drop a piece of meat into a piranha tank and act surprised when they go ravenous.
Ooh, who got “women are pieces of meat/ men in public spaces are predators” on their sexism-apologia bingo card? I did! If only she’d covered her rotting meat self, like a good Saudi woman, then the flies wouldn’t have swarmed all over her.
REALLY do not taunt Rule 34. O.O
this one already exists – I was referencing an actual bus ad that the Modesty Commission ran in Saudi Arabia that compared women who didn’t cover to rotting meat that would attract flies.
I have no idea if what you are saying is true or not about women being threatened and sexually assaulted and such. But here is what I do know: I read all about “Elevatorgate” a few months ago and came away with this conclusion: The “female side” is utter bullshit.
It consists of solipsistic emotions and perceptions that are not based on anything real, just the “potential” for something bad happening. Seeing so many women (and brow-beaten men) defend the non-existent “threat” as something to be concerned and outraged about, I made it a point to solidify my own opinion on the matter: Women who think like this deserve alienation. Like government, the church, and everything else horrible in life, they seek to control others. But instead of taxes and sins, they use guilt trips and political correctness.
After metaphorically vomiting in reaction to that whole topic, I related it all to my friends, who had similar reactions (including all the women I know, who were EXTRA horrified that this was being done “in their name”).
In summation, whereas before I didn’t even know there were women stupid enough to think like this, now I’m actively opposed to them. Elevatorgate has showed me that there is yet another enemy to fight as an Objectivist: the war against so-called “tolerance”. Every person, man or woman, who changes their behavior, or worse, their actual thought process purely to avoid “offending” someone else is a casualty of that war and a little part of them dies. It’s disgusting.
Oh, if equal treatment of women gets the Objectivists to leave the skeptical community, then I’m doubly for it. Reducing sexism and bringing more women into the skeptical movement is great and all, but getting rid of Randian douchebags (excuse the redundancy) is a truly worthwhile goal.
Hah! Good one.
Hold on now, don’t you think that your dance card is a little over-booked as it is?
I mean, fighting reality is tough enough…
Gotta love how the simple word “Objectivist” is enough for people to throw out their logic and argumentation and simply name call and appeal to weak sarcasm. How about you all actually try engaging with what I said, rather than intellectually defaulting because I self-identified.
Well given what you said amounts to telling the bitches they had better get used to having men hit on them at any hour of the day or night then you do not really have anything to say worth addressing.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. So…yeah I guess that’s the end of that then.
You have said nothing new, nothing of interest and nothing that has not already been dealt with many times before. There is no reason to treat your views with anything other than contempt.
Your “arguments” have already been addressed elsewhere. The only additional point I wished to make was that I hope Objectivists leave the skeptical community because they belong here about as much as creationists do.
Forget logical reasoning, forget a critical analysis, forget a skeptical mindset, we will just treat your views with contempt.
Also, what you have said has been addressed by someone, somewhere, at some point. So im certainly not going to address it, nor link you to a relevant discussion on it. Your view is contemptible(read:contrary) to mine.
We’ve done all that and it didn’t work, because you fuckheads are not arguing in good faith. No amount of effort we expend will cause you to start arguing in good faith. So why shouldn’t we do what’s easiest and most satisfying instead, since the outcome will be the same no matter how much effort we expend?
You say:
.
and then in the very next paragraph you contradict yourself saying:
.
Well what is it? Do you know or don’t you?
I’m saying that from everything I read on Elevatorgate (which was a lot), it was all preposterous and not real.
As for the references made in the first paragraph of this blog to sexual assaults and rape threats and the like, I can’t comment because I haven’t witnessed or read anything on the matter. I’m speaking SOLELY about Elevatorgate (which seems to be the biggest flash point in this debate so far).
This makes no sense and doesn’t answer my question. You are being vague. What is not real?
As for the threat of sexual assault, well sadly that is very real. I suggest reading: The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)
Including such facts as:
So no these are not “solipsistic emotions and perceptions that are not based on anything real”.
Yeah I understand that women get raped and threatened. That’s a serious offense and should be prosecuted fully.
Someone casually asking you to go for coffee because they are into you is not a threat of rape. That is solipsistic: “I felt threatened so I WAS threatened”. If the man in that situation were to edit his behavior because of the woman’s irrational fears, that would be the very definition of living his life for others. And that is just about as immoral as it gets. These women need to realize that just because they feel something doesn’t make it real. Again, emotions are solipsistic.
And again, I speak only on Elevatorgate. And yes, I find the term “Elevatorgate” stupid as well.
Rebecca Watson was not being asked for coffee. Sure that is what the man said, but anyone who is aware of the facts knows that coffee was being as a euphemism for sex.
Why the dishonesty ?
It’s quite telling that you think you know that he meant something ENTIRELY different than what he said, even though you weren’t there and only know of it second and third hand. Cynicism by proxy. I’ll add that to the ever-growing list of “horrible logic in support the ‘rape argument’”.
I am only going based on the facts. The facts were a man asked a woman for coffee in an elevator. Woman equated the offer as some sort of assault or at the very least, intentionally making her feel threatened. That’s it.
Her conclusion was WRONG and her feelings were misguided. Again, just because someone feels something doesn’t mean it should be regarded as valid. Her feelings of threat and discomfort say a lot about HER psychology, and absolutely nothing about the man, except maybe that he’s comfortable asking women on dates, which is great.
Even if the guy was just asking for coffee… How is anyone supposed to know? Obviously some people would use that as a euphemism for sex. Even if it was innocent, it looked just like the non-innocent offer. Rebecca just made it known to the public – so those of us who didn’t know that, now do.
It’s like a little caution sign saying this corner is slippery when wet. Sure, we knew the hazard was out there, but now we know it’s right here.
How is that not real? Who wants to do things which are the same as a predator would do?
The ‘coffee’ remark was most likely a euphemism for sex… So the fuck what? Are we no longer allowed to proposition women for sex? Perhaps we must pass that privilege solely to women. Because any time a man asks it, it is inherently threatening.
An important aspect of the ‘coffee’ euphemism, is that it is a very polite way of asking it, it allows plausible deniablility on both sides, it is designed to be a non threatening way to ask if someone is interested in sex.
I could certainly understand watson’s complaint, had the man said something to the effect of “I want to have sex with you” such a forward statement could be considered somewhat threatening, but instead he made a deliberately non threatening and euphemistic request, to allow for plausible deniablility on both sides, and when his offer was rejected he went no further.
The poor guy was publicly(and yes anonymously) admonished on an international podcast, the poor guy will probably be too scared to ever ask for sex again. But such is the casualty from those seeking special privilege.
One night I was leaving a friends apartment building with a group of people. We say our goodbyes and as I get in my car I notice a car rolling slowly down the lane. Some guy walks up to my window and asks for money because he “needs gas”. I glance in my mirror and realize that this guy’s car is now parked such that I can’t back out. I don’t really believe him but decide I’d better give him some money because at this point if he wants everything I’ve got and my car there’s not a whole lot I can do about it. I fish around in my pockets mumbling about how I rarely carry much cash and pull out two bucks. He seems satisfied and takes off.
In retrospect I choose to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he really was in a tight spot and was just innocently looking for help. There’s nothing wrong with asking strangers for money, right?
Surely anyone can see that this was just about the creepiest way he possibly could have gone about it. Rather than approach a group of three people in a well lit area he follows me to my car and parks me in so my only option is to pay him or risk upsetting someone who I’ve never met. I have no concept of how stable he is, the only thing I know about him for sure is that he thinks it’s OK to corner people and ask them for money.
I would have to be a complete fucking idiot to not have considered the possibility that this guy intended to rob me. Similarly, Rebecca Watson would have to have been a complete fucking idiot to not have considered the possibility that the man propositioning her wasn’t going to accept a negative answer gracefully.
She was never saying “you shouldn’t ever ask for sex” She was saying “Jesus fuck that was creepy. DON’T DO THAT.”
Nah. Maybe that’s what he tried to do (big maybe), but he failed.
Because wether or not a request is non-threatening depends entirely on the one being questioned.
It is quite simple really. Do you let others decide if their actions towards you don’t bother you?
It is not acceptable to ask someone for sex given in the circumstances in which RW was, no.
My standard response to what has by now become a standard rant from clueless guys (of which you are definitely one, Earl):
No, honey. It’s only YOU, personally, who is not allowed to proposition women for sex. Men who understand the importance of setting and context and showing respect for a woman’s previously expressed wishes can do whatever they like.
Despite, by your own claim, reading a lot about “Elevatorgate,” you appear to have missed what the actual bone of contention was. It wasn’t that the guy committed some heinous act by propositioning Ms Watson in an elevator at four in the morning (though, as an aside, who invites someone for coffee at 4 AM; let’s be realistic and not pretend he wasn’t making a pass); that was clumsy, and a bit creepy, but there was evidently no malicious intent, and Ms Watson never claimed there was. She merely said “that creeped me out, please don’t do that sort of thing again.”
What ignited the firestorm were the responses to Ms Watson’s post, to the effect that she was being completely unreasonable in feeling creeped out, and not only had no right, but was outright wrong to demand anyone so much as consider refraining from that kind of behavior and, perhaps more importantly, the sheer amount of gender-based invective that accompanied these responses.
And I discussed it with most of the people I know, and all of them, including men, took away the message that Rebecca was right, and the man was out of line. You presume to speak for everyone, but isn’t it possible that you surround yourself with like-minded people on purpopse? Of course, I could be doing the same thing, though many in my community are NOT okay with equal rights for women, and are in fact quite sexist. They, too, agree that this was out of line. So, please, let’s not pile up anecdotes to the moon, and claim we’ve received more enlightenment than the other person, who maybe only has half as many friends (since I’m not on Facebook, that in fact may take me several orders of magnitude lower on the scale of how many friends I have).
Oh I would never presume to think that just because my friends shared my mindset, that somehow that makes me right and other people wrong. I’m right because of logic, not popularity.
I would really like to get past all the name calling of “sexist” and such, and hear a real, logical argument for Rebecca’s side. Because the only thing I’ve heard in defense of it is words like “sensitivity” and “consideration” and many other vague, non-concrete words. No where have I seen principles in play, except the principle of living your life based on how others perceive you, which is, on the face of it, deeply flawed.
(Replying to your comment here as the nesting was getting to deep, and the text too narrow.)
You claim to have read a lot about elevatorgate, yet you don’t seem to have a basic grasp of what happened. RW said, to being propositioned in an elevator: Guys don’t do that. That was it. The whole gate part came when their was an explosion over that simple request.
We live in a culture where rape is common. It is not irrational to feel an emotion of fear when alone in an elevator, and it is not unreasonable to ask for some minimal compassion and empathy. For you to dismiss that as illusory emotions, and to say it is immoral to alter ones behaviour in any way shows a small mindedness and callousness which is breath taking.
You missed “obtuseness”.
Feelings! They are so illogical! Who could have guessed that a man would have to take a woman’s CRAZY FEELINGS into account before he fucks her!
Isn’t wanting to fuck someone an illogical feeling in the first place?
No no Azkyroth, that’s an evolutionarily derived biological imperative. Perfectly logical–you know, end of the human race and all that.
Which is why teh but sekhs is ebil.
Elevatorgate has showed me that there is yet another enemy to fight as an Objectivist: the war against so-called “tolerance”.
Sounds cool. I will start by not tolerating dumbass Randoid Nice Guys.(tm) Coolbeans?
By your “logic” here, I, as a woman, should not have felt at all threatened by the guy following me through downtown at 1 in the morning. It was silly of me to assume he could have been a threat, even though I made a complete circle several times to check if he was following me. And it was likely horribly, unforgivably rude for me to have pulled that stupid 11″ decorative dagger and stood in a fighting stance in a street light. He was probably just trying to help me and I completely overreacted, right? It’s not like another woman had been raped near the college campus not that long before. But of course, that would have absolutely no bearing on *my* situation.
Or the “nice guy” who would feign all sorts of problems to get my sympathy, and then when I started showing romantic interest in someone else became violent, and close to physically assaulting me. It was probably all my fault. I must have led the guy on with my overemotional vagina.
Or the time I was “stalked” because the guy who kept calling the house and asking where I was before hanging up, and who eventually tried to break into the house was just trying to be friends.
I’m 29 now. All these incidents happened before I was 25. I’ve had three really close calls, but I deserve to be alienated? Because I am now extraordinarily cautious around men I don’t know well, I deserve to be alienated? Because I have had ample reason to fear, I deserve to be alienated?
Ah but you see these men where just following their selfish desires, in fact it would have been immoral for them not to stalk, harass and attempt to assault you. One can hardly conceive of a more immoral act, and I can conceive of slavery and murder so that is pretty damn immoral.
I am beginning to think that Brian Mardiney is an actual straw man of objectism, all we need to do is find a wizard to give him a brain.
This. So much.
I was molested in a public pool by a complete stranger when I was 11. At 18, I was stalked by a strange man I had never met, who somehow managed to find out my phone number, birthday, and address; he threatened me with violence if I reported him, and left hundreds of disturbing voicemails on my phone. I frequently receive perverted, disturbing messages from strangers on Facebook. I’ve been groped, sexually harassed, and made to feel uncomfortable by men more times that I can even list.
Heaven forbid I feel nervous or apprehensive around men!
For fuck’s sake. Look, I’m a woman who’s been inordinately lucky in 33 years of life on this planet. I’ve only been assaulted once – by another woman trying to snatch my purse – and the majority of my interactions with men, both personally and professionally, has been lacking in sexism, misogyny or discrimination because I’ve got a pair of ovaries and an unrepentantly outspoken and opinionated.
And you know that the first thing I think of is when I hear stories about women who’ve been assaulted, raped, victims of harassment or workplace discrimination? “That’s awful, I am so lucky that I have not had the misfortune to experience any of that” not “PFFST! I’ve never been the victim of sexual assault or discrimination, so these women are obviously making it up/overreacting, jeez, why can’t they just shut up because I don’t know men like that so it can’t be a real problem, just unfortunate outlier events.”
Because, you know, I’m able to understand that my experiences aren’t the same as other women’s – and because mine are positive, it’s even more important that I not silence or invalidate what they’ve endured just because I’d prefer to think that the environment is closer to my experience than theirs. The fact that it’s happened at all is shameful to begin with.
Good. I don’t want people like you on my side. Objectivism is bullshit, pure and simple. As is misogyny. So, they go together. Have fun playing with the dudes who enjoy making rape threats against teenage girls!
It seems to me that objectivism and misogyny often go hand-in-hand.
From what personal interaction I’ve had with objectivists it seems that their religion is possibly caused by or at least routinely accompanied by a serious empathy deficit.
That might be why they keep missing the sexism and racism and economic injustice that is around and that would result from the application of their philosophy.
“Problems? What do you people mean problems? There aren’t any problems! I never have problems!” etc.
Men like you are exactly the reason I refuse to participate in atheist communities. Thanks for making me feel the need to isolate myself from my own community!
As a guy, reading Mallorie’s article felt masturbatory. Not in a good way.
As an introvert/gamer/comics reader (not even the cool ones; we’re talking ROM: Spaceknight here)/engineer who has grown over time and is thankful for the opportunities that growth has opened up for me, I suggest many men in these communities would be better off developing greater social intelligence and skills than basking in the celebratory words of Mallorie.
I agree with you. When I was in college (about 10 years ago), I was well on my way to being a Nice Guy. I was nice, and girls only liked jerks. That was my problem. Didn’t they realize that I deserved to be with them for being “nice”? Over time I realized that my real problem was that I was socially awkward and generally unwilling to make a move, so I never really knew which if any women were interested in me because I never really expressed my interest in them.
Masturbatory, yeah. Masturbatory in a sort of vindictive way. There’s a word for that: “hoggling.”
Uncle Ruckus has a sister?
In any situation of sexism, racism, etc. there’s always a small percentage of the targeted class of people who are comfortable with the role thrust on them, and quickly realize that by kicking the other members of that class they can gain a certain amount of status.
There are the atheists who spend their lives bashing the Gnus, the “Fox News Democrats”, and women who tell other women to STFU and stop trying to say, do, or BE anything that might make men uncomfortable. It is a shame, but there’s one in every crowd isn’t there?
Must admit, she sounds like a candidate for what Florence King called the “Penis-washing school of femininity”.
(What? Mallorie’s down with jokes referencing naughty bits, right?)
I don’t know about the “penis washing” thing… the general tone and especially the “keep trying to fuck me” line makes me think more along the lines of “there’s a slim chance I’ll touch your penis if you let me win this game/pick me up at the airport/help me move/buy me drinks/fight for my attention with the other guys” sort of thing. I guess that actual equality would be a step down from the pedestal she’s currently placed upon.
Like I said, there’s always some small percentage of an oppressed group who can turn things to their advantage by being what the oppressors want and kicking down instead of up. Being one of 12 wives in some polygamous cult sucks, but maybe being #1 wife has enough perks to make it worth preserving the system, starting with 11 other people to boss around and make wait on you. For all that sexism hurts women, there’s a tiny subset of women who are pleased as punch that no one ever asks them a hard question, expects them to lift things, or hesitates before paying for her meals and maybe her rent.
Slut-shaming Joe, is sexist. You’re part of the problem.
I’ll bet you say that to all of your betters.
Anyone else find Mallorie’s article unintentionally funny/ironic? I mean, part of her point, such as it is, is that women like her aren’t delicate and don’t need to be protected from the evil men. But, at the same time, the entire article kind of assumes that men are delicate, and need to be protected from the evil feminazis. If I were a man, I’d be insulted :-)
There is a huge difference between saying “you guys are awesome, so don’t change” and saying “you’re delicate and I’m protecting you from feminazis”
The difference seems minute.
This, totally. As a dude, it shocks me how much misogyny is double-edged–usually it’s the “women have to act/dress in X way because the menz can’t control themselves!”
In this case, it’s more ‘oh poor baby, what did the mean feminists say to you? You know it’s not true, you’re perfect just the way you are.’ It’s like Mom telling you that to her, you’re the handsomest boy in school. It’s condescending to everyone.
I’ve never personally had a bad experience with the skeptical movement either. No one has ever threatened to rape me harassed me, and I’ve never felt like I’ve been treated unequally, personally.
That’s awesome for ME and everything, but I can clearly see other women getting rape threats and being treated like objects. I found it pretty easy to recognize a problem in a movement despite the fact that I myself have not experienced it.
Every single time this issue comes up it demonstrates more and more clearly just how very many people simply will not open their eyes and see the truth for what it is: there’s a real problem here. How do I know that? Well, women keep saying it, which means they keep experiencing it, which means it’s real. Jebus! So many people in denial about something that’s so obviously true. If our supposedly progressive, supposedly enlightened community can’t figure this out and work to improve the situation what hope is there for the world in general?
Not necessarily–maybe it just means that lots and lots of women are Just Plain Wrong. Probably because they’ve been brainwashed by feminists, or because they’re just irrational to begin with. Silly women.
Or lying. Because women just love lying. Like, all the time. See also: False Rape Society. Any MRA website dealing with divorce and alimony. Etc.
This is why I lose my patience. I lost my patience in the thread Mallorie is complaining about, and for all I know I may be a lot of the reason that she felt the need to write further.
The reason I lose my patience is because I don’t need to hear claims of sexist treatment from women to know it exists, I know it exists simply because I’m a man who has been alive on this planet for 46 fucking years.
I’ve HEARD other men talk. I’ve seen other men harass women. I’ve seen incompetent male workers get promoted above spectacularly competent women. I’ve listened to “liberal” men reduce their female counterparts to a collection of body parts when they were out of the room.
I’ve watched TV. I’ve seen beer commercials.
I’ve fucking LIVED IN THIS WORLD.
Anyone denying that we are in a sexist environment is an idiot, and it’s not much of a stretch to assume that this pervasive sexism could spill over into your local bowling team.
So when a man reacts with outraged denial to an assertion from a woman that she has experienced misogyny when he wasn’t there to see it then he’s being an ass regardless of whether or not her specific claim turns out to be true.
From a woman, thank you, thank you so much! You get it, and the fact men like you exist in our movement makes me feel much more hopeful.
Here’s what I don’t get. Let’s say that you’re a skeptical dude, and your privilege has blinded you completely to the problem of sexism. A woman (or lots of women) says that what you’re doing/saying is uncomfortable. How hard is it to stop doing that?
Like, this isn’t a matter of something that takes a lot of effort. This isn’t even walking on eggshells, afraid to say the wrong thing for fear of some major backlash. This is recognizing the same appropriate boundaries that you hopefully recognize in various other facets of your life. This is standing and quietly facing the front of the elevator like everyone else. This is not making rape jokes at a 15-year-old.
Even if it were women being all crazy and irrational and anecdotal, are you really so attached to making rape jokes at anyone and hitting on anything with legs that you can’t even entertain the notion? What is lost by restraining yourself a little?
I get what’s being said on the outside. “Women aren’t always victims and men aren’t always assholes, so why paint them with those brushes?”
The problem is that’s not true. Some women are victims. And nobody is saying women are delicate and need a special class of protection – they’re saying men shouldn’t act towards them like assholes. Not all men are dickheads, though sometimes I get embarrassed towards my gender by their behaviour.
Just because you are careful to not infringe on someone with privilege and dickery doesn’t mean you can’t have fun. I have many female friends with whom I’ve had many inappropriate conversations and discussions – and who sometimes say worse back to me! The difference is consent – those women have said that these conversations and jokes and discussions are cool with them. We’re friends and we have some give and take – and if we say something that offends the other, we have the social capital to pay for it, apologize, forgive, and move on.
With random internet people, or random people at a skeptical movement, you don’t have consent or social capital. You’re strangers with no relationship. Presuming one thing? That’s just stupid.
The fun doesn’t stop if you’re behaving the way people like Jen, Greta, Christina, Stephanie, Rebecca, etc. have suggested. It’s just you take some extra time to make sure the fun is mutual, and find fun and laughs that can be honestly shared by everyone.
But taking the time to think that other people might not find menz behavior just peachy keen and take the feelings of others into consideration is just so hard! *whine*
I was thinking the same thing. There seems to be a conflating of advice for basic social rules in large group settings of strangers with a common purpose, and the behavior that is acceptable amognst friends.
Online forums presumably count under groups of strangers, and that is why feminist atheist bloggers are trying to make the atheist/ skeptical spaces less sexist. Online accounts are generally anonymous which often makes people feel more like expressing things in a far less appropriate manner than they would in person, and there is now a backlash of people saying that this is unacceptable. Because we want our online spaces to be held to a higher standard, in addition to the work in our real life groups.
Friends and smaller close knit groups have more leeway with their behavior depending on what each person finds acceptable. Additionally, I may not mind if my bff calls me a thundercunt, but be offended if a person I do not know does it. I think it is possible to have a group that includes men and women who are both sexually crude and physically flirty and men and women who prefer to keep all that separate from their skepticism groups. If people are able to communicate their boundaries, and respect those of others. Surely it is possible to restrain flirtatious commentary to persons and times that are appropriate and welcome. Which may well be all the time among groups of close friends etc.
I always thought it was in the spirit of skepticism to change your opinions through fact-searching and argument. Not saying: “This is me, this is what I believe, and no-one will ever convince me otherwise”.
What the article says is pretty much “I fit into the male gender roll enough so that I can pass and don’t feel rejected by the sexism.” It also furthers the fact that the man is the norm, and if we where just a little bit more like men and relaxed and dude-ish, we’d all just get along fine. It upholds masculine gender-role as the standard we should all be held to, and doesn’t do jack to change society, equality or anything else.
But a big nation-wide movement shouldn’t just cater to one type of people and exclude the ones who don’t fit in, they should take steps and measures to include everyone, and for no-one to feel unwelcomed.
Jebus. Her whole argument basically boils down to: “I’ve never thought or felt there’s a problem with sexism in the skeptic community, ergo, there *is* none (and women who are arguing the opposite, it’s just because bitches be crazy and I’m not like that, I swear!).” How disappointingly unoriginal.
Reverse the argument and you’ll see her side. “I’ve heard of an occasional problem with sexism in Y community, ergo we should change the entire culture to treat women better”.
Then you get the problem of changing the entire culture.
So?
So, that’s HARD WORK, and then we would have to do WORK, just because a few WOMEN said so, and we can’t do that because… er…
Nothing to do with hard work.
Changing a subculture is relatively easy. However, changing an entire culture does not mean “keep it the way it is, but better”. There are always unintended side effects, many of which make things less comfortable to be around.
I’ve seen dozens of organizations (some of which I was a very active member in) change to the point that I no longer wished to be part of them. When the culture changes even slightly, then several train-stops later you have something new, quite often worse, and largely irreversible.
It has nothing to do with hard work, Spawn of Cthulhu (Wow, I do like that name though).
It has everything to do with unintended consequences when you think you’re changing something straightforward. You don’t just change a little piece of a culture. You wouldn’t be creating an identical culture that’s also more fair. You’d be taking a culture that a lot of people are comfortable with, and twising it into something completely different.
And honestly, I don’t think it would be because of the speeches on treating females better. The famous skepchick elevator post was pretty mild and had a decent culture imbued within it (don’t be stupid, guys). But then someone is stupid, another overreacts to everything, and we get huge pissing contests over who is more misogynistic and who is the better and person. The fights lead to people who cringe at the artificial controversy, and who suddenly want less to do with that community, and so forth down the road.
Suddenly a blog that I love to read for it’s witty banter and pictures of certain biologists riding dinosaurs feels unfriendly and weird. I mean, seriosly, some girl says “I love my dirty-minded atheist friends” and she’s put on “the friendly atheist” as some sort of idiot misogynist slut. It’s disturbing.
Gosh Nathan, that’s an amazingly unconvincing argument for not changing the culture so there’s less sexism.
“BAD THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN! YOU JUST NEVER KNOW!”
You crack me up.
Are you actually saying that changing an entire culture to treat women better is…bad? Hopeless, maybe? Naive?
Because if I had to come up with a (sub)culture which has the best bet of changing its social mores to better treat women, the atheist/skeptic culture is pretty much choice #1.
But…but we might have to preface a particularly bawdy version of The Aristocrats with, “oh, hey, is anyone here offended by jokes about rape/necro-/corpro-/pedo-/zoophilia?” And that’s a lot of words!
Worse, we might have to get to know people as people, enough that we could gauge whether or not certain actions or statements might come across as asshole behavior! And I just won’t cotton to treating people like people. I only have so much respect to give!
Yep, that’s what he’s saying.
Nope, no misogyny problem amongst atheists, nosireebob.
People like that have no advice to offer me about how to conduct myself and what to expect from others.
I read this and your follow ups and your point still is that it’s unreasonable to try to change the culture to be more fair to women. Why? Because something bad might happen. Dunno what, but it could because y’know, change is SCARY.
Same shit I hear from the “reasonable” people who are nervous about gay rights. And what my “reasonable” father thought about those agitators for civil rights in the 1960s.
Pathetic.
How is there a problem with treating women better? Oh… I get it – you think they’re saying “treat women better than men” rather than “treat women, equally – better than we are treating them now”. ‘Cause of course obviously all those out-spoken women skeptics arte really saying they wante to be treated as a preferred class of people rathe rthan as an equal class of peole.
Well, at least that’s bette rthan “bad things happen some times, get of over it…”, Oh, wait. You’re saying that, too, that women just need to get over being sexually harrassed/assaulted/raped and stop bitching about it.
Some of the language here is starting to confuse me. If men in these social groups talk to each other as men, and they talk to each other as equals, the feminist complaint is that women do not need to be talked to as men, but as equals. Where is the disconnect between a man talking to another man as an equal, and a man talking to a woman as an equal, if man on man conversation is inherently one of equality?
I can understand the confusion, because the language might seem contradictory at first glance. I think the best advice is to equally treat men and women as individuals. This involves generally taking a bit of time to get to know the other person to understand what is or is not acceptable to them. I do not mean to sound patronizing, I am just trying to simplify a bit.
When you first meet someone in a friendly environment, there are social norms people adhere to: introductions, short “tell me about yourself”, finding common ground, etc. Once a conversation gets going, and commonalities are found, a friendship can form. It is this sort of mindfulness that meetings between men and women should have (equally). Even if you are interested romantically, it behooves you to take time to consider her desires, boundaries and expectations and to do that you have to follow basic social norms of communication. You can drop a shocking or lewd statement on a person immediately, but it can backfire. And any offence caused is on you because you didn’t take the time to learn what was acceptable.
There is no one-size fits all solution to any inter-personal interaction.
There are some people you will just not like, and there are some people who will just not like you. Yet there is no reason to not attempt to reach an equal understanding of a person’s boundaries before becoming more familiar with them. This may take more work or time to get to that understanding with some people, even if it is just, “don’t even bother talking to this person” if you can’t seem to get a good read on them or already have problems with them.
The extra consideration to take when men are talking to women is just to acknowledge that her experiences may well have caused her to have a guard up around men she doesn’t know well. Try not to take this personally.
Not sure what you mean by, ‘talking to other women like men and not equals’ – the experiences of women are not generally equal to the experiences of men so there may be a need for different approaches. If you mean instances like when men feel they have to modify the language they previously used among other men (perhaps a few women) in consideration of a woman’s feelings – they were probably just being checked on their privilege. Sexist language is not usually thought about until someone speaks up about it, but it is not that person’s fault for pointing it out.
Finally I would not say that a man to man conversation is inherently one of equality. There are many inter-sectional levels of privilege one can have in relation to someone else, gender being only one.
This might just be me, but it kind of seems like both sides of this argument are both right and both wrong. (all of text Inc)
My experience in the skeptic/science/atheist/comic art/videogame (my professions) movements and communities has much more closely mirrored Mallorie’s.
The guys I’ve encountered have been nothing but kind and friendly, if not downright paragons of a weird sort of chivalry that has never included singling me out for anything other than my ability or perhaps my acerbity, and the lewd humor is generally relegated to the social “in the pub” or around the gaming table venues. In professional environments it’s been nothing but professional.
I’ve had problems with idiot man children threatening to murder/rape me online, yes. I’ve had bosses who treated me like my opinion was somehow less than a male counterpart. I’ve had arguments reduced to “well you must be ___hot/ugly/aslut/awhore/easy/frigid/etc____.” I’ve been appalled at some of the stuff even “leading” people say about women and “how they think” or “what they need” or whatnot on their blogs.
But on the whole I recognize that I’ve been very lucky, and most of my experiences in these communities have been great.
And in the last few years it seems like all of these communities have sort of realized “oh hey girls do exist other than that one we have over there.” Which is awesome and good and needs to keep happening. I don’t think anyone would argue against that. More diversity = more awesome. But what I got out of Mallorie’s article is something that I’ve had a hard time articulating.
I’ve not joined any feminist wing of the skeptic’s movement because I sort of don’t feel like their/our, entirely VALID, anger, indignation and rage are directed towards the right people.
Or at least the wrong people are listening. (Which is something I think could be fixed, if we could figure out why)
What I got out of Mallorie’s article, and in much of my experience, was that it’s the skeptics in the pub, the gaming group, the atheist meeting people, the socially awkward teens at dragon con, that are hearing the messages, and, having tried their best to be the friendly men who love women(platonically and as people), treat all people with respect, but still be themselves, are just hearing “nope, not good enough, you’re still fucking assholes”. Which is kind of not the point.
Those guys aren’t the problem. They already figured it out, and have been trying to do the right thing their whole lives, in some cases. Lumping them in with the evil-doers that threaten rape just confuses and hurts, especially the young guys, who are listening. One little astrisk or caveat at the beginning or end of a rant exempting “the few the proud”…that’s what we’re trying to change about being women in the skeptics movement, right? we want to not be asterisks?
There are really GOOD things about these communities, and some of them ARE intensely welcoming. Why? What makes them different? What makes Mallorie feel at home in her groups? What makes me feel cozy in mine? Are they the same? Different? How can we spread that feeling of love for her friends and families of skeptics she talked about. Those are good things! Maybe if there’s a way to harness and spread the good rather than constantly weed whacking?
The feminist movement is VALID and it’s righteous, and it’s necessary and I want to be behind you in a less tepid way. But I can only ever get my righteous indignation up to a lukewarm smoulder because I can’t figure out a way to actually address a problem I don’t see as coming even mostly from within the skeptic’s/atheist/nerdysciencenerdsnerds communities.
Women are told, by the whole WORLD that Science, Math, Comics, Strategy, Debate, Free Thought, Questioning, Seeking, Stargazing, Squids and Magic….they are not our domains. We have already fought through that. That’s why we’re here. I can’t help but think…what drew us through that harrowing curtain? The beauty, the thrill, the mysteries answered and new ones to chase, and in many cases the welcoming pint or proffered cup of late night coffee from our brothers in arms.
We’re all on the same side, and I do think we all want the same thing, it’s just…I have to believe there’s a way for us to include more people that doesn’t involve making the men that are doing it right, are already on our side, or are young and going to be joining the movement never having done any of the wrongs their predecessors have, rethink their positions, or feel cowed, wrong, or reduced to asterisks.
That doesn’t actually get us anywhere.
I’d really like to see more focus on the positive, and, for an article as positive as Mallorie’s…I think there’s stuff to take from that. There’s lessons to learn.
No, we are not all on the same side. I am not the on side of anyone who wants to treat women like second class citizens, and that is what a significant number in the atheist/sceptic movement seem to want to do.
One could be charitable, and assume they are unaware that they way they treat women does just that, but that excuse ran out a long time ago. For those who think RW overreacted, and had nothing to complain about, to continue to think that means they have been ignoring what women, and men, have said repeatedly. They cannot be that obtuse.
Did you even read Jen’s post? It’s wonderful that you’ve had such an easy time entering these communities. Jen recognizes that things are easier now then they have been before, and agrees that it’s a good thing that there are women out there like you.
HOWEVER
Just because there are women like you out there doesn’t mean that ALL women have had the same experience. Even one incidence of sexism in our community is one too many. I think you recognize this.
HOWEVER
you lost me with this:
Who exactly is this happening to? Who is ‘rethinking their positions’ on making the community more welcoming to women? Who feels that they are being reduced to an asterisk? This male scientist, atheist, gamer, comic nerd, etc. doesn’t feel that way. Where did you get the impression that there are many out there that do?
I did read Jen’s post, and I understand and in no way wish to diminish the very wrong, very upsetting, and very valid problems, conflicts, insults, threats, and horrors she and other women, myself included, have endured.
I admitted I have, however, had more positive than negative, and am quite lucky this is the case. To reiterate, I do not wish to say that there is no problem, everything’s fine, women need to stfu.
I do however think that when women like me, and, I think, Mallorie here, try to talk about moving the argument in a way that focuses on “Hey, this is good. How can we make more of THIS?” instead of just “This is bad, we must stamp this out” those voices, as far as I’ve read, tend to get shouted down. I personally feel very afraid posting on feminist forums because I don’t have the unilateral “no this is wrong and we must fix it” approach I see over and over.
I understand there’s a lot of anger, and it comes from somewhere very real, experiences very hard, and cruel, and that should never have happened and should never happen again.
I do, however, think that there is a place for Mallorie’s voice, and the argument that there are communities that ARE welcoming, there are women who DO have good experiences, and that if, when those do show up on the internet, they weren’t immediately thrown on the pyre, someone smarter than me might find a way to spread those experiences.
You can’t grow a garden just by pulling weeds. You can’t change the world just by stamping out vile behavior. You gotta encourage the good, too. I was just trying to say that, yes, while the anger and the bitterness is not something we need to say “stfu” to, it’s real and it’s necessary and it gives the feminist movement force, it would really, really be nice to see some focus, some twitter trending topic, about growing what’s…good.
When I read Mallorie’s post, that’s what I liked about it. It wasn’t angry, and it DID speak for a group of us in it’s tone of “thanks guys. You do good.” if not in all of it’s words. Because a lot of guys out there do. They really do. And I don’t think, and I might be wrong, please tell me if I am, but I don’t think that the internet is so small that we can’t have both anger at what’s wrong, and happiness at what’s right, and use them both to craft a better world.
My point regarding the asterisk thing was that the feminist anger is right, but it’s not always getting to the right people. The guys who are hearing it, again in my experience, are the ones who abstractly see the problem, and are concerned by it, but would never contribute to it, because they are doing it right. The loudmouth assholes who don’t give a shit, and are the problem, aren’t hearing the message. Because they don’t give a shit. It’s the great guys like you (I assume based on your name) that are hearing it. You don’t need to! You know!
I guess it might be bias based on experiences with my rather awesome and yes, I admit, I am lucky, skeptics groups, confused co-workers and angst ridden friends who came back from “women in __science/games/comics/atheism___” conferences asking me “do I ever make you feel like that!? I’M SO SORRY!!!! D:” , admittedly, but from what I’ve seen it’s the same group of people that are getting the message that “Skeptics/whatever groups don’t include women and men in skeptics/whatever groups are assholes ergo you, man in skeptics/whatever group must be an asshole.”
They’re not assholes, and I think, what Mallorie’s article was getting at, is that she’s had one of those “Do I ever make you feel like that?!” conversations too many. That’s not a desired effect of the feminist movement, I don’t think, anyhow? And maybe there’s a way to lessen that effect by changing the aim of the message? (NOT the message. Your anger is valid. Your experiences are valid.)
But I don’t like those “Do I hurt women!?” conversations any more than I like being called a slut or a whore just because I disagree with someone. I think /that/ was what Mallorie’s article was about.
I think we’re on fundamentally the same side here, but the above quote illustrates what I don’t understand about your point. Why wouldn’t anyone want to have these conversations? What’s the harm in explicitly reaffirming that no line has been crossed and that it’s all good? I’m not talking about after every freaking sentence, of course, but maybe when something nears or crosses ‘the line.’ Because to me, these brief discussions end in one of two ways:
1. Everyone of both genders agrees that it’s all good, and perhaps even funny
2. Any offended parties feel free to air their grievances, and any inappropriate behavior is learned to be avoided in the future.
Aren’t both of these outcomes positive?
Interesting. Your friends who seem to want to avoid sexist or denigrating behavior towards women are just as bad as the people who engage in sexist and denigrating behavior openly.
Until they aren’t.
It’s not as if they are huge, obvious woman-hating communities. I was in mine for 6 years and never had a problem of this sort.
Well, not until I loudly and angrily defended the point that women have feelings too and those feelings should be accepted and taken into account by those people who interact with those women (sometimes better known as Elevatorgate).
Because by doing that I made some people realize I was a woman with woman-feelings and I was punished for being angry, because really, angry women are just hysterical (being angry is a justifiable feeling (for males), hysteria is not, which is why this label is so damn silencing).
That’s why the article is so off the mark.
Those communities are welcoming to women, as long as they play along with the boyz.
If they don’t, then gender becomes an issue.
Sorry, missed something:
It’s not as if they are _all_ huge, obvious woman-hating communities.
Not every community is as obvious as r/Atheism, and even that one found people to defend it.
I’m sorry; I wasn’t trying to say that they’re all welcoming in perpetuity or anything at all.
It’s absolute and total b/s that the response to valid anger is being shut out or punished, and yeah that is a problem. It’s also a problem if a place or group is just a “boyz club” because it’s really not actually inclusive, then.
I guess what I’m “defending”(how did that happen?) in this article is the attempt to try something other than anger, or a rather lecturing “here is why you are wrong” tone, and highlight a rare situation where it sounds as if things are going right, in what kind of tends to be a sea of horror stories. :\
I think we must have been reading different articles.
The one I read suggested that since Mallorie has not been subjected to sexism within the sceptic community, claims that others have must be exaggerated and in any case do not matter.
Why?
Because I’m a woman? Because men (or some) can’t deal with anger? Women should be nice, don’t they? An angry, mean woman is just a hysterical bitch and won’t be taken seriously?
Yeah, that’s kind of (one part of) the problem…
Being nice does not fix it.
Because you agree with it and feel Ms. McCreight is out of line and getting to much credit for this post? That’d be my guess, anyway.
I don’t see that in Aunt Ruckus’ piece (it seems to affirm and encourage the behavior many women find harmful) but even if it were, what’d make it anymore valid a method of drawing attention to problems then, well, drawing attention to problems?
What I got out of Mallorie’s article, and in much of my experience, was that it’s the skeptics in the pub, the gaming group, the atheist meeting people, the socially awkward teens at dragon con, that are hearing the messages, and, having tried their best to be the friendly men who love women(platonically and as people), treat all people with respect, but still be themselves, are just hearing “nope, not good enough, you’re still fucking assholes”. Which is kind of not the point.
This exactly, as someone who has spoken at length to mallorie about this. this^
Then if that is what Mallorie mean, she said it in an awfully dumb way, and the way she’s repsonded has only dug herself in deeper. As Jen pointed out, Mallorie made use of a whole bunch of strawmen like the claim that those speaking out against sexism are asking for special treatment rather than equal, or her implicit denigration of the women wo wouldn’t want to fuck their skeptical guy friends. Later, Mallorie’s replies to Jen’s deconstruction were passive aggressive and littered with even more strawman and never really addressed any of Jen’s points.
Mallorie apparently doesn’t want to change. She’s addressing all men in the skeptical movement as if they were the guys who get it about sexual harassment and she doesn’t seem to acknowledge that for sexism to exist in our movement that menas there have to be men who are sexist (and the men who never act sexist themselves but never call out other guys for doing so, the enablers).
Even if everybody has completely misinterpreted Mallorie, is she so stupid that she cannot see how her piece would have come across to those who *have* been the victims of sexism? Rather than the passive aggressive bullshit and more strawmwnr, why didn’t she try to explain more clearly what she meant instead of continuing the “I haven’t been thevictim of sexism so things don’t need to change” bit?
This is a variation of the “others have it worse so stop whining” theme. Now it’s “others don’t complain, so stop whining” and it doesn’t make any more sense.
I’ll be honest, I’ve never much cared for Penn Jillette. He comes off as an asshole, and his arguments are frankly chock full of fallacies. What I see in Penn is a guy who believes a lot of correct things for a lot of the wrong reasons and/or is willing to distort the truth to promote his views. Of course, he also believes in at least one big wrong thing (Libertarianism, an entirely evidence free, utopian ideology), and I am not the least surprised to find that he just doesn’t get it with regards to sexism. He and Mallorie both suffer from a delusion common among libertarian types, that if we just don’t talk about the power differences that exist between men and women in our society, then those differences will simply cease to exist. It’s frankly identical to the common libertarian notion that not only do we not need affirmative action, but that the markets would have fixed the problem of whites only lunch counters if we had just left them alone, so the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary.
I too think Gillette reeks of assholery. But, so does PZ.
I don’t make Mallorie’s mistake of assuming all skeptics are therefore assholes, despite prominent spokespeople demonstrating extreme examples of it.
It’s pretty hard to believe that “Not everybody has your experiences” is SUCH a hard sell in the SKEPTIC ‘community’.
I don’t think it’s a hard sell – the problem is the direction that thought goes in after the assertion is made that not everyone shares the same experiences. Often, I’ve seen women saying that because they haven’t experienced the sexism or misogyny that others have, it must not be a problem because *they haven’t experienced that sexism of misogyny themselves,* which is the wrong tack to take.
Just because I haven’t experienced much, if any, misogyny or sexism directed at me in my life and therefore don’t share the same experiences at other women, it doesn’t give me the right to tell those women they’re imagining it or overreacting or that they should just shut up and deal with it – instead, I should be working to make my positive experiences the norm so that they will be shared by more women. Because the reality is that it has happened to other women, and there’s no guarantee the odds will continue to hold in my favor so that I continue to escape those experiences. Working to ensure equal treatment benefits both those women and me in the long run.
This shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp either but apparently it is.
I often say that people today are the end result of a quarter-million year breeding program to produce animals that are very good at two things: fighting and fucking. Even though most of us no longer have to fight for food or mates we are still wired for these responses.
I think that being a skeptic involves a degree of self-awareness. Swimming against the stream of broader opinion takes resolve that is usually derived from self-knowledge. Oddly enough, there is a belief in many spiritualist circles that adherence to the dogma will produce “enlightenment” as well, and often this enlightened attitude provides for a release from the burden of the mating urge. I suppose this notion is popular among those whose belief system requires them to be celibate.
Is there a chance that there are some of us in the skeptic community believe that we are “above” our sex drives, and are thus being blindsided by our ids, much as the believers so often (and often to scandalous or criminal results) do? In other words, I say that I can both be self-actulized enough to question commonly held beliefs, but also motived by my subconscious motivations to seek out a sex partner, and in denial about this drive, possibly because there is a pattern of belief that to sublimate the mating urge is “noble” or enlightened, according to another widely-held (but not necessarily correct) belief.
All these incidents, and people’s response to them, often look to me like a microcosm of the atheist movement in the world at large, or ANY movement to change thoughts and behaviors. You have the people pointing out a problem, saying that people aren’t even noticing that they’re hurting or offending or driving away people, and then the ones saying “hey seems ok to me, why do you have the keep harping on it?” Theists in the world at large just don’t get why those annoying atheists have to keep making so much noise and can’t just get on with life. Many people among skeptics and atheists seem to not understand why those annoying feminists have to keep making so much noise and can’t just get on with life.
I’m not exactly a normal guy. But issues like this make me leave responses like this,
http://www.ponychan.net/chan/dis/res/30709.html#i30719
In public places that I care about. (Please don’t flood them. Some of them can be understandably sensitive).
One thing I would like more clarification about is the equality/special treatment distinction.
One thing I have noticed about conversations about sexism, briefed touched on by Richard in #22, is that many women do not realize how some men treat other men, most notibly men who who are somewhat soft spoken and not very assertive. They are frequently belittled, ignored, their sexuality is denigrated and made fun of, threats of violence etc. In short, many of the same problems that are being called evidence of sexism and/or misogyny.
I don’t want to dismiss the problems that many woman are experiencing, but I can understand why asking men to change their behavior may be preceived as asking for special treatment not equality.
In some communities, such as the athiest or skeptical communities, a particular group of men may be used to making riblad jokes and harrassing all newcomers mercilessly, but normally it’s all men and goes unremarked. Is it misogynist or sexist when such behavior is also applied to women? Is it asking for special treatment to ask them to stop treating women that way? I honestly don’t know the answer to such questions.
I asked my husband about forum he frequents that is heavily male with lots of displays that I find as disgusting as the REDDIT thread. It’s an accepted part of that forum’s culture and I wasn’t sure how to tell the difference between them. He informed me that although his favorite forum is quite tolerant of rape/sex jokes regarding other posters, put downs, etc., the REDDIT thread wouldn’t have been permitted as moderators would have removed it and/or the community wouldn’t have tolerated such responses to the Reddit OP. Good to know and I’m glad to hear that his forum isn’t as bad as Reddit, but that sounds to me like special treatment for a young female, not equality.
Given that most women react very differently emotionally to such discourse than most men do, if you think that it’s special treatment do you think it is justified?
I’m of the opinion that such discourse is inappropriate conduct to anyone. I don’t want to be a part of communities that tolerate the type of behavior displayed in the Reddit thread, but that’s why I only frequent forums which have moderation rules that suit me personally. OTOH, for those who enjoy participating in that sort of thing with like minded people, I don’t object to their having a place where they can do that. I’m just not going to participate. I don’t see this as a problem.
I do see it as a dilemma when more gender diversity is desired, but it doesn’t appear that the Reddit atheists have that desire.
Women don’t react differently because they are women and not men (that implies they are more sensitive or emotional, which is sexist), but because they are usually on the receiving end (as are others who we tend to overlook).
No one, as far as I can see, is arguing for special treatment for women, but for equal treatment for people on the receiving end (who tend to be marginalized people).
In the comments of the post below this one, Greta explicitly asks for special treatment for women.
And are men and women exactly the same emotionally? I thought that at least women experience more stress due to a differently set up amydala (which deals with fear and anxiety).
No, Greta is not asking for special treatment for women in the previous thread. Greta is asking that people recognize that being truly “gender neutral” is difficult thanks to a number of influences. One common consequence of the resulting subconscious process is that work done by men is seen as more important and serious than work done by women.
Greta suggests that when composing a list of people based on accomplishments that are largely determined through subjective criteria, gender should be taken into account as a way to combat potential subconscious gender bias in the selection.
If you view this as “special treatment” as opposed to a useful method to help minimize potential accidental sexism than I would like to know what colour the sky is in your world.
Ah, well that does make more sense, yes (if there is evidence for the phenomenon that is). She should have had you write her comment for her!
(no need for the snide ending though old bean.)
Women don’t react differently because they are women and not men (that implies they are more sensitive or emotional, which is sexist), but because they are usually on the receiving end (as are others who we tend to overlook).
Actually my point was that women, as a group, do react differently than men when targeted by the type of abuse/humor that is under discussion. I don’t think it is due to being on the receiving end because men have also been on the receiving end of similar abuse. I think the differences do exist in same way that men are generally taller and stronger than women. Is it sexist to acknowleedge that such differences exist?
My point with different in this case is that equal treatment may result in unequal reactions. There is no need to assume that women are more emotional than men, just that their emotional reactions are different. Women are more likely to express their emotional reactions and more willing to risk being labeled as sensitive, but I suspect that has to do with our culture and what is perceived as acceptable behavior for women and men.
You said women react differently emotionally than men because they are women and men are… men.
But that’s not true.
Different people react in different ways. People who feel as victims react in different ways. And of course culture shapes those reactions and the expectations of reactions.
It is when you put a value on it or construe a (biological? like being taller) gender difference where none exists.
People are diverse. People will not react with equal (meaning: same) reactions.
It seems to me that is reason for you to question the concept of equal treatment (which, if I understand you, is futile because equal treatment will not produce equal reactions. Maybe it’s just my ESL, but are you not confusing two meanings of “equal” here?)
You said women react differently emotionally than men because they are women and men are… men. But that’s not true.
Says you. I disagree. I think that, in general, males react differently to threats of violence than women do. This may not be the case, but that is my observation and you’ll have to provide evidence to convince me otherwise.
Different people react in different ways. People who feel as victims react in different ways. And of course culture shapes those reactions and the expectations of reactions.
This is all true, but doesn’t contradict or invalidate what I said about differences existing. Consider height as an anology. Even though different people are different heights, even though environmental factors have an impact on the height a person grows to, and even though some women are taller than some men, we can still determine that the average man is taller than the average woman. A difference exists and can be quantified.
Beth said: Is it sexist to acknowledge that such differences exist?
momoelektra answered: It is when you put a value on it or construe a (biological? like being taller) gender difference where none exists.
Let me rephrase this a bit then. When a gender difference actually exists and no valuation is being placed on the goodness or badness of the characteristic, it is sexist to acknowledge that such differences exist?
If yes, then biology is sexist.
If no, then discussing differences should not merit disparaging terms like ‘sexist’ or ‘misogynist’.
As far as whether difference in emotional reaction to threats of violence and/or rape jokes actually exists, I think that given that the sex organs produce hormones that affect a person’s emotional state, it seems to me a reasonable conclusions that emotional reactions to some situations will differ in predictable ways between men and women. Do we disagree on this point? Or only on whether a difference in reaction to threats of violence and rape jokes exists?
It seems to me that is reason for you to question the concept of equal treatment (which, if I understand you, is futile because equal treatment will not produce equal reactions. Maybe it’s just my ESL, but are you not confusing two meanings of “equal” here?)
It’s not two different meanings of ‘equal’ but two different ways the concept can be applied. Should it be applied to the actual treatment of others (everyone is treated the same way) or should we take into consideration our knowledge of the way people in different groups can be expected to react to the treatment? For example, if people in group A will be offended by a joke that people in group B will find hysterical, should telling them the same joke be considered treating them equally?
I am a man, and have on occasion been the target of this kind of behavior from other men, and I didn’t like it one bit. I didn’t laugh and join in and insult call the other guys “faggots” and “pussies” and whatnot in an attempt to be accepted as part of the fun group.
It upset me very much and the pass that the culture gave it (and teachers and principals) is part of the reason I dropped out of high school.
I guess I must be abnormal.
Women don’t react differently because they are women and not men (that implies they are more sensitive or emotional, which is sexist), but because they are usually on the receiving end (as are others who we tend to overlook).
Biology is sexist.
It is, but not in the way you seem to think it is. And this is still not an argument for doing nothing about sexism.
That is ALSO evidence of sexism; those men are being picked on because they “act like girls”.
That is ALSO evidence of sexism; those men are being picked on because they “act like girls”.
If a particular behavior is likely to result in abuse regardless of gender, then I don’t think that we can then draw the conclusion that the abuse is due to sexism or misogyny.
I do regard the attitude that ‘acting like a girl’ is asking for abuse as sexist. However, I don’t know that men who get picked on are guilty of ‘acting like a girl’ on the internet. It may be true, but it’s not something I have noticed.
sexism is not behavior by or against a particular gender; sexism is behavior that enforces sexist structures and causes sex-differential outcomes. Thus, beating up on “girlie-men” is sexism in that it reinforces the male/masculine > female/feminine hierarchy, which in turn causes the gender gap across society
Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe says:
sexism is not behavior by or against a particular gender; sexism is behavior that enforces sexist structures and causes sex-differential outcomes. Thus, beating up on “girlie-men” is sexism in that it reinforces the male/masculine > female/feminine hierarchy, which in turn causes the gender gap across society
Not a definition of sexism that I’m familiar with, but I’ll keep it in mind.
well, there’s a very easy solution to that fauxlemma: don’t be use misogyny against other men, either (because that’s precisely what “They are frequently belittled, ignored, their sexuality is denigrated and made fun of, threats of violence etc.” is)
they don’t react differently, actually. Men who are subject to hazing with no promise of ever being the hazer rather than the hazed react exactly the same way women do; the difference is that some men don’t belong in that category and thus can treat the hazing as an initiation ritual; but then, the few women who also for some reason or another expect to be doing the hazing at some future point also don’t react the way you claim women in general do.
IOW, difference in reaction isn’t caused by gender per-se; it’s caused by whether someone is permanently on the receiving end, or only being n00b-hazed.
1. It’s wrong for men to treat other men like that.
2. That’s an example of sexist behavior, because those men are being equated with women or are viewed as not being “real men.”
ahh yes, another example of a woman within the skeptic community who doesn’t agree with what apparently is the “official” viewpoint a woman in the skeptic community should have, so all hell breaks out on the internet at her. So great, continue to put off most of the women I know from the movement who don’t share y’alls cultural sensibilities since they know if they speak up for themselves, they’ll just get trashed too (all in the name respecting women right?)
And yes, you are allowed to “respond” to her, but I find it telling how aggressive the hoard goes at it when it’s against a women who speaks differently on this subject.
Yea, there is some sexism going on around here, but it’s not always what everyone thinks. And it’s mixed with a whole lot more cultural elitism than anyone will admit!
It’s amazing, the whole skeptic movement is comprised of a lot of people who think they are smart, but they can’t seem to understand this whole argument is about something that its SUBJECTIVE!
For a movement that is trying to be “inclusive” of more people, it sure does seem to go all internet lynch mob over anyone who expresses a different cultural viewpoint.
Shorter version:
“How come you don’t tolerate people who won’t tolerate you?”
Exactly, that’s why so many people I know (many many women included) are so put off by the current skeptic community. The snobby geek elitism that has no tolerance for anyone outside of their narrow social norms has forced them to say “screw it, you won’t tolerate us so we’re out”.
whoosh.
Don’t mistake snark for stupidity.
Oh, don’t worry. There can be no mistaking your stupidity.
@Matt
Aw wow good one. Did you work all day on that? You would have made Hitchens proud.
Again, it seems to be a problem because a woman does it.
I rarely see people complaining that Dawkins is such a meanie to the theists. I mean, other than theists.
::waves hand:: I think the cultivated crudity of PZ isn’t helping much, no matter how much he enjoys masturbating his smug sense of correctness.
Harsh enough? Not bloody likely.
Very telling isn’t, no one could put together a reasoned, rational response to your post, instead they had to resort to logical fallacies and straight up dismissal. This is what happens when certain ideologies tint the world view. Skepticism and rational thought must be suspended in favour of the ideology.
Not responding to bullshit is not the same as acknowledging bullshit as truth. I’m not sure if there is a name for this, “Ha! No one responded! Just goes to show how right I am!” …Actually, now that I phrase it like that, I guess it’s just a boring ol’ non sequitur. Too bad.
But! Since you appear desperate for a response, I take specific issue with this:
And yes, you are allowed to “respond” to her, but I find it telling how aggressive the hoard* goes at it when it’s against a women who speaks differently on this subject.
I’m not sure why it’s telling that people get upset when a woman “speaks differently on this subject”…by saying that there’s nothing wrong and nothing should change. It’s like there’s a 300lb. drunk gorilla wandering around the room, stepping on people’s toes, and she’s saying, “Whatever! He’s so cuddly!” That doesn’t magically make people’s toes un-stepped-upon, it just makes them angry that she’s dismissing a problem for irrelevant reasons.
* Oh, and that would be “horde,” not “hoard.” Although if this is a subtle dig of women-as-property, that’s very sneaky.
Mallorie Nasrallah is a potential ally. I can see all of this from her perspective; she was coming to the defense of her friends. And her response to your critique was”I don’t believe you. Show me the evidence.” That’s a good thing! That makes her a good skeptic, like the rest of us.
Now we just have to show her the evidence that droves of women have been made to feel unwelcome/disrespected/harassed/dismissed.
If Mallorie has not found the evidence then she cannot have been looking very hard.
It is good to ask for evidence, but it also good to your homework, and try looking for yourself. She must be aware of Rebecca Watson and how she was treated after what was a perfectly reasonable request. She only needs to read Abbie Smith’s blog to understand just how vilely sexist some who consider themselves sceptics can be. I simply do not accept she is unaware of the evidence. No one can be that obtuse and still function.
There’s something about human endurance that allows people to be extremely obtuse and still survive. We also like to be correct and it’s easy to not see the evidence that contradicts what we want to believe. So, maybe we can gently, and respectfully, deliver it in an easier to digest form, without even a hint of spin. Seems like the most straight forward way to do this is if people directly tell her their own personal stories.
Perhaps she *is* aware of the evidence: the nasty, bitter treatment of Steff McGraw; the nauseating histrionics of the Dear Dick letters and childish Dawkins boycott etc etc
On the contrary, people like Mallorie are not-looking, very hard.
The evidence is right there. In Jen’s post, in the previous post at Greta’s that Mallorie commented on, in the comment threads, in two godzillion examples all over the net. Her response to the evidence was “well that wasn’t ME, stop trying to erase MY experience”.
Because if it’s not about Mallorie, who cares?
Mallorie has been victim blaming the fifteen-year-old girl who received rape threats in pretty damning victim-blaming terms. Rebecca Watson and, I think, Greta Christine, are also targets of her ire.
This is all so tiring.
For everyone arguing that sexism isn’t present in skeptical groups, and even if it is it’s not that bad, and even if it is that bad women have to deal with it: what exactly are you afraid of? You’re being asked to do one thing, and one thing only: treat women as people. Not a monolithic group, not a stereotype, not an item there only for your pleasure. Treat each of them as an individual person.
Why is that so hard and so threatening that it brings up so many defenses? Why is it such a huge and high cost that you spend so much time fighting to prove that it doesn’t happen? Let’s say it’s all made up; is there any harm in pretending it’s true anyway and acting more decently because of it? Is it so hard to treat women like people that you simply cannot be convinced to do it unless there is verifiable evidence of women being, I don’t know, raped right in front of you or something? Because you don’t believe the stories women are telling you, and you don’t believe the evidence of women being absent in large numbers, and you don’t believe the sociological studies of how ingrained sexism is. Why are you so defensive about it? Wouldn’t it be so much easier to treat women like people and just get on with life?
Going on some of the posts here and the general ridiculousness that followed Elevatorgate, it seems that the unfortunate answer to your question is “No!! I like my privilege and I wanna keep it! WAH!”
“Make even the SLIGHTEST change in my behaviour?! Dash it, that shall not stand!”
Yeahhhhh, heaven forfend they just nod and think “Gee, I’ll watch out for that more.”
It is not as though the original comment by RW was angry, or full of vitriol or even that reproachful. She merely pointed out that many women do not much care to be propositioned by men they do not know at 4am in a lift. I was surprised it needed saying, as I would have thought it was bloody obvious (got that wrong!).
I think few if any men are actually surprised by this. The ones reacting angrily know, but “well, damn it, she SHOULD be fine with it!” [arm-crossing, foot-stomp]
Privilege is a wounded animal. Poke it, prod it, encroach on its territory at all, and it will lash out in self-defense. Doesn’t matter if it’s misogyny (“the women want to be treated like people! That’s so irrational!”), homophobia (“the gays want to be able to hold hands in public! That’s disgusting!”), or religion (“that billboard says you can be good without God! That’s offensive!”).
Right, because this isn’t like radical feminists trying to impose extremist views on everyone. I totally get the pushback against some things that can be described as “nitpicky” or at least up for debate. Stuff that fair-minded, honest, and decent people can disagree about without anyone being called sexist or a traitor to feminism or whatever.
The level that we’re at here though is basic Social Behavior 101 stuff, and skeptics seem to be failing miserably at it left and right. This is stuff as simple as “know your audience” and “think before you speak” and “things that you’re fine with aren’t fine with everyone, and things that offend you don’t offend everyone” and especially “treat others the way they want to be treated.”
And the response is just wacky and weird, and I can’t tell if it is because of willful blindness, unconscious privilege, blatant dishonesty in the name of open misogyny, or some combination of the three. I read Jen’s post, I read the pushback, and the two things seem to exist on different planets.
I think this is the point of Mallorie’s post. You admit that sexism may only be on a small scale, perpetrated by a small number of men, yet you address all men to change their actions and attitudes. Mallorie’s point was simply that most of the men here are great people, and those guys should certainly not change like that.
If the men in Mallorie’s group are as good as she claims, then there’s no need for them to change, thus criticisms addressing sexism in skeptic communities do not apply to them.
It would be one thing if Mallorie had written a piece telling her specific community that despite the criticisms being leveled at various skeptics communities and the skeptic culture at large about sexist treatment of women, she wanted to reassure them that they were not sexist and she had never been made to feel uncomfortable, and let them know she thought they were doing it right. Unfortunately, she went beyond that, making the fallacious jump that because she’d never experienced sexism in her own community, there isn’t a problem at all and no one in any other community should change his behavior.
Also, Mallorie seems to be making the assumption that these men she knows are going to have their feelings hurt so badly by these criticism of the skeptic culture at large that it’ll have a negative effect on her community even though they are apparently not the men who criticisms about sexist treatment and behavior against women are being leveled against. Seems rather infantilizing of Mallorie toward her male skeptic friends that she seems to feel they must be so sensitive and delicate they need her to protect and defend them from criticism of behavior they’re not displaying in the first place.
This really shouldn’t be hard for anyone to grasp. If the skeptic community Mallorie belongs to is going along just fine and not exhibiting any sexism or misogyny in its ranks, hey, that’s fantastic and there’s no need for them to change. Criticisms of sexism in other skeptic communities and the culture in general don’t apply to them.. But just because it’s fine in Mallorie’s circle doesn’t mean that it’s just as fine in other circles, so none of those men need to change either.
Of course, it could just as easily be that they behave like the ones we are criticizing but that she’s internalized the “don’t be a whiner” gaslighting that’s so chokingly pervasive in American culture so thoroughly that she can’t even admit to herself that the way her friends behave isn’t really respectful. It’s hard to tell from this distance. :/
Yes, it would be very unlikely that she is telling the truth that she has an enjoyable and sexism free time in the skeptical community. This place is overflowing with so much sexism, its best to speculate that she might be lying or covering something up. Makes it easier to dismiss.
That’s not what I said.
Unfortunately, she went beyond that, making the fallacious jump that because she’d never experienced sexism in her own community, there isn’t a problem at all and no one in any other community should change his behavior.
I tried looking through her post to find where she did this, can you please cite it?
This is just off the top of my head, but I believe it was the part where she said (paraphrased):
DON’T CHANGE FOR ANYBODY
OY.
Logic 101:
“Don’t do this” applies ONLY to those who are doing “this”.
But if you’re criticizing some men about bad behavior, other men not engaging in that behavior might still think that criticism is about them and their feelings will get hurt! What about teh menz???
On the one hand, I’m generally in favor of stating things precisely, and it’s not that hard to explicitly restrict your statements to the people they’re actually meant to apply to. On the other hand…well, it doesn’t help. >.>
I don’t think that’s a valid ‘what about the menz!’ retort.
You are forgetting about the effects which can happen when accidentally hitting the wrong targets. Besides any pain it might cause them unnecessarily, there is also confusion, and even defensiveness as they start some pushback against the original claim because they think it’s unfair to them.
Basically, I think extra effort to be precise helps the message get through more clearly and cuts down on the unintended consequences. Just because it’s not possible to completely avoid these problems doesn’t mean it isn’t worth some effort to try.
In various threads I see, particularly with the sexism but on other topics too, I think I see a good bit of the defensiveness and the pushback comes from that sort of confusion and people who think they may be targeted, and unfairly, even though they weren’t the intended target.
100% this.
The mind boggles that a group of supposedly rational beings are being so fucking obtuse about this issue.
“No one is saying all men are evil misogynistic assholes.”
Perhaps not, but it is my experience that merely stating a differing opinion here or at Skepchick will get you labeled as “sexist” and “mysoginst” almost immediately. Or posts expressing a different point of view will simply be erased, as Greg Laden did to me at his blog.
Interesting that you list each straw man you perceive in the letter written by Mallorie Nasrallah, but then engage in the exact same activity yourself. Do you really believe that her position is as you summarized here: “Who the fuck cares if you’re hurting people. If you’re racist, great. Homophobic, splendid. Sexist, woohoo! Because you should never change your behavior to try to be a better human being.”
What was the opinion? State it precisely, please.
Because there is an alternative hypothesis: it was in fact a sexist or misogynist opinion.
Keep in mind: holding sexist or misogynist opinions doesn’t make you a Bad Person. It makes you a product of your culture.
There are admittedly quite a few communities where people have become so accustomed to dealing with misogynist trolls that they’ve become a bit trigger happy. And there are admittedly a subset of them where people not only lash out based on overactive pattern recognition (understandable) but treat any protests as vindication of their original assumptions and twist words and move the goalposts pretty blatantly to continue attacking a person who merely disagrees (intellectually dishonest and regrettable). Those latter places are pretty disagreeable and I try to stay away from them (on the other hand, I realize that an echo chamber can be quite a valuable tool to people who’ve never been able to hear their own voices before). But so what? Unless your point is that you and yours won’t lift a finger to improve yourselves until all feminists and all feminist communities become perfect….
I do see some of that behavior in comment threads at Skeptchik.
I know it makes me less inclined to spend time reading comments or sometimes even the blog posts.
Which means I’ll end up less familiar with what people are saying there, their viewpoints and arguments and the like.
Which then results in me being potentially less of an ally than I might otherwise be. Even though I don’t expect perfection and do see problems in need of addressing. By which I mean, using that as an excuse to be dismissive is only one possible negative reaction.
And here I thought the important thing was to do the right thing (treat all people as equals) because it was the right thing to do (treat all people as equals)…but obviously it’s more important to passive-aggressively threaten to withhold support from a group because they refused to acknowledge you were more important than the discussion at hand.
Shows what I know.
Perhaps not, but it is my experience that merely stating a differing opinion here or at Ske